Labor 2 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Labor 2 reviewer. C2015. AY2012-‐2013

Table of Contents
Summary: Collective Bargaining: General Concept Procedure and Issues .................................... 2

VII. Collective Bargaining: General Concept Procedure and Issues .................................................. 7
A. General Concept ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
B. Bargainable Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 8
C. Bargaining Procedure ............................................................................................................................................. 8
D. The Collective Bargaining Agreement ............................................................................................................ 12
Summary: Unfair Labor Practice ............................................................................................................... 22
VIII. Unfair Labor Practice ........................................................................................................................... 31
A. In general .................................................................................................................................................................. 31
B. Acts violative of right to self-‐organization .................................................................................................... 35
C. Acts violative of right to collective bargaining ............................................................................................. 39
D. Motive, conduct, and proof ................................................................................................................................. 41
E. Enforcement, remedies, and sanctions ........................................................................................................... 42
Summary: Union Concerted Activities ..................................................................................................... 46
IX. Union Concerted Activities .................................................................................................................... 63
A. Basis of Right to Engage in Concerted Activities ......................................................................................... 63
2. Statutory .................................................................................................................................................................... 63
3. Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................... 67
B. Strike .......................................................................................................................................................................... 67
C. Slowdown as Concerted Activity ....................................................................................................................... 81
D. Picketing ................................................................................................................................................................... 82
E. Role of Peace Officers During Strikes and Picketing .................................................................................. 83
Summary: Employer Lockout ..................................................................................................................... 84
X. Employer Lockout ..................................................................................................................................... 85
A. Basis, Limitation and Definition ....................................................................................................................... 85
B. Effect on Work Relationship .............................................................................................................................. 85
C. Ground for Lockout ................................................................................................................................................ 85
D. Prohibited Lockout ............................................................................................................................................... 85
E. Procedural Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 86
F. Effect of Illegal Lockout ........................................................................................................................................ 88
Summary: Labor Injunction ........................................................................................................................ 88
XI. Labor Injunction ....................................................................................................................................... 90
A. Definition and Nature ........................................................................................................................................... 90
B. General Rule – Prohibition ................................................................................................................................. 90
C. Exceptions – When Allowed ................................................................................................................................ 92
D. Issuing Agency ........................................................................................................................................................ 92

1

Summary: Collective Bargaining: General Concept Procedure and Issues
A. General Concept

1. The State’s policy as to collective bargaining is:

• Art. 211-‐A(a): “To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes.”
• Art. 211-‐B: “To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and
employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining…”

2. Nature and Purpose

Kiok Loy v NLRC:
• Negotiations towards a collective agreement
• One of the democratic frameworks under the LC
• Designed to stabilize the relation between labor and management and to create a climate of sound and stable
industrial peace
• A mutual responsibility of the employer and the union and (a legal obligation, duty)

B. Bargainable Issues

Under Art. 252, the purpose of collective bargaining is to negotiate an agreement with respect to:
• Wages, hours of work, and ALL other terms and conditions of employment
• [“All” includes] grievance and arbitration machineries
• Anything consensual in nature is negotiable (Union of Filipro Employees-‐Drug v Nestle).

Mandatory v Permissive Issues
• The above under Art. 252 (that is, employment-‐related), are mandatory bargaining issues. However, anything
else may be negotiated upon agreement (i.e., with “permission”) of the parties-‐ these are permissive issues.
• Consequences for refusal to bargain:
o In mandatory issues, this constitutes ULP (thus, strike or lockout may ensue).
o In permissive issues, no ULP (thus, “economic weapons” such as strike or lockout may not be used).

Limitation: As in other contracts, stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, and public policy
are void (Manila Fashions v NLRC).

C. Bargaining Procedure

1. Private Procedure

When there is no CBA in place (i.e., an agreement or arrangement providing a manner of collective bargaining), the
employer and the representatives of the employees have the duty to bargain collectively in accordance with the LC
(Art. 251).

2. Labor Code Procedure

Art. 250 lays down the procedure in collective bargaining:
a. Party desires to negotiate an agreement: It shall serve a written notice upon the other party with proposals.
o Other party must reply within 10 calendar days from receipt of notice
b. If differences arise on the basis of (a): Either may request for a conference
o Must begin maximum 10 calendar days from request
c. If dispute not settled: The Board shall intervene (at request of parties or own initiative); conciliation meetings.
d. During conciliation in the Board: Parties are prohibited from any act which may disrupt or impede settlement
(may constitute ULP).
2

e. Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a
voluntary arbitrator.

Single enterprise bargaining (Secs. 3-‐4, Rule XVI, Book V)
• When available: Any voluntarily recognized or certified labor union may demand negotiations with its employer
for terms and conditions of work covering employees in the bargaining unit concerned.

• Procedure:
1. Union submits intentions to negotiate together with its proposals, in writing, to the employer.
2. The union and its employer may adopt such procedures they may deem appropriate for the early
termination of negotiations.
3. Both parties name their respective representatives to the negotiation and schedule the meetings.
4. Agreement on wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of work for all employees covered in the
bargaining unit.

Multi-‐employer enterprise (Secs. 5-‐6, Rule XVI, Book V)
• When available: a legitimate labor union(s) and employers may agree (in writing) to come together for collective
bargaining.

• Limitations:
a. Only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent bargaining agents (SEBAs) may participate;
b. Only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions who are incumbent bargaining agents may
participate; AND
c. Only legitimate labor unions who pertain to employer units who consent to multi-‐employer bargaining may
participate.

• Procedure:
1. Either labor unions or employers initiate.
2. Labor unions who desire to negotiate must execute a written agreement among themselves (legitimate labor
unions who are members of the same federation, national, or industry union are exempt from this).
3. Legitimate labor unions who desire to bargain with multi-‐employers shall send a written notice to each
employer concerned.
Employers who agree to group themselves or use their existing associations to engage in multi-‐employer
bargaining shall send a written notice to each of their counterpart labor unions.
4. Negotiations may commence only with regard to respective employers and unions who consent to
participate in multi-‐employer bargaining.
5. During the course of negotiations, parties shall discuss and agree on (1) the manner by which negotiations
shall proceed; (2) the scope and coverage; (3) where appropriate, the effect of the negotiations on current
agreements or conditions of employment.

3. Conciliation/preventive mediation

(For when this takes place, see the procedure in collective bargaining above.)

Note: Conciliation cases which are not subjects of notices of strike or lockout shall be docketed as preventive
mediation cases.

Information and statements made during conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged information and
shall not be used as evidence in the Commission; conciliators and similar officials may not testify before any court or
body (Art. 233; Sec. 2, Rule XXII, Book V).

4. Duty to Bargain

The “duty to bargain collectively” means “the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purposes of negotiating an agreement” with respect to those issues listed above
(Art. 252).

This duty remains even in the absence of a CBA.
3

When a CBA exists, this duty “shall also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its
lifetime.” (Art. 253)
o Exception: Freedom period. Either party can serve a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at
least 60 days prior to its expiration. (They may, however, choose to renew it.) (Art. 253)
 But provisions contrary to law (such as those below minimum standards), morals, good customs, public
order, and public policy are void.

Violation of this duty, or refusal to bargain collectively, constitutes ULP (Art. 248(g) for employers; Art. 249(c) for
labor organizations).

D. The Collective Bargaining Agreement

1. Definition/Contents

“Collective Bargaining Agreement” or “CBA” – The contract between a legitimate labor union and the employer
concerning wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit (Sec. 1(j),
Rule I, Book V).

When the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law between the parties (Lepanto Ceramics v Lepanto
Ceramics Employees Assoc.; PAL v PALEA).

Effect of Sub-‐Standard Contract: Before RA 9481, Art. 239(f) provided that entering into a CBA which provides for
terms and conditions of employment below minimum standard established by law was a ground for cancellation of
union registration.
• However, Art. 239, as amended no longer includes sub-‐section (f).
• Obviously, such terms and conditions would still be void (those contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, and policy) as seen in a long line of jurisprudence (Manila Fashions v NLRC).

2. Registration

The Bureau maintains a file of all CBAs and other related agreements and records of settlement of labor disputes and
copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators (Art. 231).

Process for application of registration:
(Art. 231; Secs. 1-‐3, Rule XVII, Book V)

1) Within 30 days from a CBA’s execution, the parties shall submit to the Bureau or the Regional Office of DOLE for
registration:
a) Copies of the CBA
b) Verified proof of its posting in 2 conspicuous places in the place of work
c) Verified proof of its ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit
o No other document shall be required.

2) The Bureau or Regional Office shall act upon the application within 5 calendar days from receipt thereof.
o (If application in Regional Office) Regional Office shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the CBA within 5
days from its submission.

3) Bureau/Regional Office assess employer a registration fee of at least P1,000.
o Amount as set by the Secretary of Labor for the effective and efficient administration of the Voluntary
Arbitration Program.
o Amounts collected here go to the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.

3. Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries of a CBA are all the workers in the respective bargaining unit.

The CBA’s benefits extend to the laborers and employees not part of the chosen bargaining labor organization.
4

o Otherwise, the purpose of the CBA, to enable labor to secure better terms of employment, would be frustrated
when non-‐members are deprived of advantages they could gain (Mactan Workers Union v Aboitiz).

4. Minutes of Negotiations

Proposals found in the minutes of the negotiations do not form part of the CBA. They are not binding. If they were
agreed upon, then they should have been included in the CBA (Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form v NLRC).

5. Interpretation, Administration, and Enforcement

CBA’s are contracts subject to appropriate special laws.
• Reason: “The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good.” (Art. 1700, CC)
• E.g. wage orders supersede CBA provisions on wages (Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union v Norkis
Trading).

Nature: “Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the
fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature,
may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law (Art. 1315, CC).”
• That is, as in Pantranco North Express v NLRC and Dole Phils. v Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero, CBA provisions
should be interpreted and enforced literally when such is possible.

Liberal Construction: A CBA, imbued with public interest, must be construed liberally and yield to the common good
(Cirtek Employees Labor Union v Cirtek).

Grievance Procedure: (Arts. 260)

The parties to a CBA shall include provisions that will ensure mutual observance of its terms and conditions, i.e.
establish a grievance machinery.
• For the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from (1) the interpretation or implementation of the CBA
and (2) arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.
• Grievances submitted to such machinery which are not settled within 7 days shall be automatically referred to
voluntary arbitration (as prescribed in the CBA).
o The CBA should name and designate in advance a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of V.A.s, or include a
procedure for selection of the same.
o In case of the parties’ failure to select a V.A. or panel of V.A.’s, the Board shall designate.

Voluntary Arbitration:
• V.A. or panel of V.A.s shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved
grievances arising from:
a) The interpretation or implementation of the CBA
b) The interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies
o This jurisdiction does NOT include termination cases when it does not arise from 2 grounds above (Atlas
Farm v NLRC).
a) Upon agreement of the parties, the V.A. or panel of V.A.’s shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes
involving ULP and bargaining deadlocks (Art. 262).
b) With relation to strikes, picketing, and lockouts-‐ before or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process, the
parties may opt to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration (Art. 263(h)).

A strike (and by extension all other similar acts, such as a lockout) conducted without first following the grievance
mechanism and voluntary arbitration clauses agreed upon and founded on the provisions of the Labor Code will
render the strike illegal.

Jurisprudence grants Voluntary Arbitrators to adjudicate corollary issues. However, if the V.A. does not rule on an
issue, the employer does not lose authority to act upon it (e.g. exercise its right to discipline erring employees).
(Manila Pavilion Hotel v Henry Delada)

5

Contract Infirmities: The contract bar rule in certification elections (see Art. 232; petition for certification election
should not be entertained when it may disturb the administration of duly registered CBAs) does not apply when the
CBA is full of infirmities (e.g. missing essential requirements such as notice in 2 conspicuous places, consent of
majority of union members undetermined, etc.) (Associated Labor Unions v Calleja).

Contract Ambiguity
• General rule: Unless ambiguous, CBA provisions should be interpreted according to their literal meaning.
• HOWEVER, in cases of ambiguity, the same should be resolved in favor of the union members (Art. 1702, CC; Holy
Cross of Davao College v Holy Cross Faculty Union).

Contract Duration and Renewal

Insofar as the representation aspect is concerned, a CBA a shall be for a term of 5 years (Art. 253-‐A).
• During these 5 years, the Contract Bar Rule applies (Sec. 7, Rule XVII, Book V), that is: (1) no petition questioning
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and (2) no certification election shall
be conducted, except:
o During the 60-‐day “freedom period” immediately before the date of expiry of the CBA’s 5-‐year term
• All other provisions of the CBA shall be renegotiated not later than 3 years after its execution.
• Any agreement on such other provisions of the CBA entered into within 6 months from the date of expiry of the
term of such other provisions as fixed in such CBA, shall retroact to the day immediately following such date.
o If such agreement is entered into beyond 6 months, the parties shall agree on the duration of the
retroactivity.

When the freedom period expires and no petition for certification election is filed, the employer shall continue to
recognize the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent (Art. 256 par. 2).
• When the parties agree to extend the CBA’s original 5-‐year term, the union’s exclusive collective bargaining
status is not also extended. As such, another rival union may still file for certification election during the freedom
period (FVC Labor Union – Phil. Transport & Gen. Workers Org. v Sama-‐samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa
FBC).

Note: Renegotiated CBAs are subject to the same requirements and procedure in registration as discussed earlier.

Automatic Renewal: Status quo prevails until a new agreement is reached (status quo also prevails during the
freedom period).
• It is the duty of both parties to keep this status quo and to continue in full force and effect the existing CBA.
• However, in case of bargaining deadlock, they may exercise their rights under the LC (grievance machinery, strike,
deadlock, etc.) (Art. 253-‐A).
• Automatic renewal pertains to 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 certification election (Art. 253 as
explained in PICOP v Tañeca).

CBA and 3rd Party Liability: None.
• Labor contracts are not enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise. Labor contracts being are in personam
(i.e., affecting a specific person only), are only binding only between the parties. (ALU v NLRC)

CBA and Disaffiliation: A union that disaffiliates from its “mother union” is still the same party as stipulated in the
CBA. Joining such national union does not form a new union (Elisco Elirol Labor Union v Noriel).

Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators:
• Under Arts. 261 and 217(c), as clarified in Policy Instruction 56 (1993) of the Labor Secretary, the voluntary
arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination cases arising in or resulting from:
a) The interpretation and implementation of CBAs
b) The interpretation of enforcement personnel policies which were initially processed at the various steps of
the plant-‐level Grievance Procedures under the parties’ CBAs.

Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters (Art. 217(a)(c))
• L.A.s have the original and exclusive jurisdiction:
6

1. ULP cases;
2. In all other termination disputes not in the two situations contemplated above;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay,
hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-‐employee
relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Art. 264 (including questions on the legality of strikes and lockouts.
6. All other claims arising from employer-‐employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or
household service, involving an amount exceeding P5,000 (e.g. Social Security, Medicare and maternity
benefits; with or without claim for reinstatement).
o Except claims for Employees Compensation

The Commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters (Art. 217(b)).

Cases under the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbiters shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.
• If none provided, refer to the NCMB Regional Branch for appropriate action (Policy Instruction 56).

RTC Jurisdiction (Halaguena v PAL)
• General Rule: RTC has no jurisdiction in disputes involving an employer-‐employee relationship.
• Exception 1: RTC may have jurisdiction when the principle relief cannot be resolved with only the application of
labor law (in Halaguena, the Constitution and international law) as it is outside the competence and expertise of
the L.A.s and the NLRC.
• Exception 2: When the dispute is not between the Union and the Company, but between specific employees and
the Company (in Halaguena, some female employees against the Company).

VII. Collective Bargaining: General Concept Procedure and Issues
A. General Concept Sec. 1, Rule XVI, Book V, Omnibus Rules
1. Policy Declaration Penalties. – Any person violating any of the provisions
Article 211-‐A(a) & B. Declaration of Policy. – A. It is of Article 264 of the Code shall be punished by a fine of
the policy of the State: not less than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos nor
more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos and/or
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free imprisonment for not less than three months nor more
collective bargaining and negotiations, including than three years, or both such fine and imprisonment,
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as at the discretion of the court. Prosecution under this
modes of settling labor or industrial disputes. provision shall preclude prosecution for the same act
under the Revised Penal Code and vice versa.
B. To encourage a truly democratic method of
regulating the relations between the employers and
employees by means of agreements freely entered into

through collective bargaining, no court or
Sec. 3, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution
administrative agency or official shall have the power
to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
terms and conditions of employment, except as overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote
otherwise provided under this Code. (As amended by full employment and equality of employment
Sec. 3, RA 6715, March 21, 1989) opportunities for all.
Kiok Loy v NLRC

7

Facts: The Union submitted its proposals to the Union initiated negotiations. Nestle responded, but
Company and requested for its counter-‐proposals, but insisted that the Retirement Plan was a unilateral
the Company ignored these requests. The case was grant by the company as was not subject to
submitted to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. negotiation.
After asking for postponement several times, the NLRC Held: The Retirement Plan was a proper subject of the
declared the company guilty of unjustified refusal to CBA negotiations. The benefit was actually in the
bargain. existing CBA, which showed that it was consensual in
Held: The Union has a valid cause to complain against nature, and therefore negotiable.
the company’s attitude indicative of the failure to
follow what is mandated by the Labor Code-‐ to bargain
in good faith. Collective bargaining, which is defined as
negotiations towards a collective agreement, is one of Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form v NLRC
the democratic frameworks under the New Labor Facts: In the negotiations for a new CBA, the Union
Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor was persuaded to withdraw its proposal that wage
and management and to create a climate of sound and increases mandated by the government be
stable industrial peace. It is a mutual responsibility of automatically implemented across-‐the-‐board.
the employer and the union and is characterized as a According to the Union, it withdrew the proposal
legal obligation. because management promised it would implement
increases across-‐the-‐board, as it had done in the past.
B. Bargainable Issues However, when new wage orders were issued,
Management did not implement it. The Union alleged
Art. 252. Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. – that Management was guilty of bargaining in bad faith.
The duty to bargain collectively means the Held: Where a proposal raised by a contracting party
performance of a mutual obligation to meet and does not find print in the CBA, it is not a part thereof
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its
the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect implementation. The Union may not validly claim that
the proposal recorded in the Minutes of the
to wages, hours of work and all other terms and
negotiation forms part of the CBA. It is a part of the
conditions of employment including proposals for proceedings to make demands and offer proposals and
adjusting any grievances or questions arising under counter-‐proposals but nothing is considered final until
such agreement and executing a contract the parties have reached an agreement. With the
incorporating such agreements if requested by either execution of the CBA, bad faith bargaining can no
party but such duty does not compel any party to longer be imputed upon any of the parties thereto.
agree to a proposal or to make any concession.
Manila Fashions v NLRC C. Bargaining Procedure
Facts: The Union filed a complaint charging the
company of non-‐compliance with wage increase order. 1. Private Procedure
Eventually, the Union and the Company agreed to Art. 251. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of
condone the wage increase, and such was reflected in collective bargaining agreements. – In the absence of
their CBA. The Union admitted the existence of such an agreement or other voluntary arrangement
provision but argued that it was invalid as it was not providing for a more expeditious manner of collective
reached after due consultation with its members.
bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and the
Held: Parties to a CBA can establish such stipulations, representatives of the employees to bargain
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem collectively in accordance with the provisions of this
convenient provided they are not contrary to law,
Code.
morals, good customs, public order, and public policy.
CBA provision violated the wage order, hence it is
void.

Union of Filipro Employees-‐Drug v Nestle
Facts: As the existing CBA was about to expire, the
8

2. Labor Code Procedure Art. 260. Grievance Machinery and Voluntary

Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. – The Arbitration. – The parties to a Collective Bargaining
following procedures shall be observed in collective Agreement shall include therein provisions that will
bargaining: ensure the mutual observance of its terms and
conditions. They shall establish a machinery for the
a. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from
shall serve a written notice upon the other party with the interpretation or implementation of their
a statement of its proposals. The other party shall Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising
make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar from the interpretation or enforcement of company
days from receipt of such notice; personnel policies.
b. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice All grievances submitted to the grievance machinery
and reply, either party may request for a conference which are not settled within seven (7) calendar days
which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of its submission shall automatically be
from the date of request. referred to voluntary arbitration prescribed in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
c. If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall
intervene upon request of either or both parties or at For this purpose, parties to a Collective Bargaining
its own initiative and immediately call the parties to Agreement shall name and designate in advance a
conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators,
to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the or include in the agreement a procedure for the
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the selection of such Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
parties to participate fully and promptly in the Voluntary Arbitrators, preferably from the listing of
conciliation meetings the Board may call;
qualified Voluntary Arbitrators duly accredited by the
Board. In case the parties fail to select a Voluntary
d. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board,
Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, the Board
the parties are prohibited from doing any act which
shall designate the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the
Voluntary Arbitrators, as may be necessary, pursuant
disputes; and
to the selection procedure agreed upon in the
e. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes Collective Bargaining Agreement, which shall act with
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their the same force and effect as if the Arbitrator or panel
case to a voluntary arbitrator. (As amended by Section of Arbitrators has been selected by the parties as
20, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) described above.
Caltex Refinery Employees Association v Brillantes

Facts: Union and Company submitted unresolved
Art. 251, supra p. 8 issues to the jurisdiction of the Labor Secretary, who
affirmed a resolution to shorten the periods to
process/resolve machinery from 45 to 30 days at the
first step and from 10 to 7 days at the second step, as
well as removing the step of establishing a joint
Art. 233. Privileged Communication. – Information and
council.
statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be
treated as privileged communication and shall not be Held: Labor Secretary affirmed. No particular setup for
used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and grievance machinery is mandated by law. Art. 260, as
incorporated by RA 6715, provides for a single
similar officials shall not testify in any court or body
grievance machinery to settle problems arising from
regarding any matters taken up at conciliation interpretation of implementation of the CBA. The
proceedings conducted by them. procedure ordered by the Secretary sufficiently
complied with the minimum requirement of the law.
In fact, he went beyond the minimum by providing for
2 steps. Also, his leaving of the number of voluntary
arbitrators (whether 1 or 3) to the choice of the
9

parties is valid, and can be seen as allowing the parties Sec 6. Procedure in Multi-‐Employer Bargaining. –
latitude to decide for themselves.
Multi-‐employer bargaining may be initiated by the

labor unions or by the employers.
a. Single Enterprise Bargaining
(a) Legitimate labor unions who desire to negotiate
Secs. 3-‐4, Rule XVI, Book V, Omnibus Rules
with their employers collectively shall execute a
Sec 3. When Single Enterprise Bargaining Available. – written agreement among themselves, which shall
Any voluntarily recognized or certified labor union contain the following:
may demand negotiations with its employer for terms
1) the names of the labor unions who desire to avail of
and conditions of work covering employees in the
multi-‐employer bargaining;
bargaining unit concerned.
2) each labor union in the employer unit;
Sec 4. Procedure in Single Enterprise Bargaining. – A
recognized or certified labor union that desires to 3) the fact that each of the labor unions are the
negotiate with its employer shall submit such incumbent exclusive bargaining agents for their
intentions in writing to the employer, together with its respective employer units;
proposals for collective bargaining.
4) the duration of the collective bargaining
The recognized or certified labor union and its agreements, if any, entered into by each labor union
employer may adopt such procedures and processes with their respective employers.
they may deem appropriate and necessary for the
early termination of their negotiations. They shall Legitimate labor unions who are members of the same
name their respective representatives to the registered federation, national, or industry union are
negotiation, schedule the number and frequency, of exempt from execution of this written agreement.
meetings, and agree on wages, benefits and other
terms and conditions of work for all employees (b) The legitimate labor unions who desire to bargain
covered in the bargaining unit. with multi-‐employers shall send a written notice to
this effect to each employer concerned. The written
b. Multi-‐employer bargaining agreement stated in the preceding paragraph, or the
Secs. 5-‐6, Rule XVI, Book V, Omnibus Rules certificates of registration of the federation, national,
industry union, shall accompany said notice.
Sec 5. When Multi-‐Employer Bargaining Available. –
Employers who agree to group themselves or use their
A legitimate labor union(s) and employers may agree existing associations to engage in multi-‐employer
in writing to come together for the purpose of bargaining shall send a written notice to each of their
collective bargaining, provided: counterpart legitimate labor unions indicating their
desire to engage in multi-‐employer bargaining. Said
(a) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent notice shall indicate the following:
exclusive bargaining agents may participate and
negotiate in multi-‐employer bargaining; 1) the names of the employers who desire to avail of
multi-‐employer bargaining;
(b) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor
unions who are incumbent bargaining agents may 2) their corresponding legitimate labor organizations;
participate and negotiate in multi-‐employer
bargaining; and 3) the fact that each corresponding legitimate union is
any incumbent exclusive bargaining agent;
(c) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to
employer units who consent to multi-‐employer 4) the duration of the current collective bargaining
bargaining may participate in multi-‐employer agreement, if any, entered into by each employer with
bargaining. the counterpart legitimate labor union
(c) Each employer or concerned labor union shall

10

express its willingness or refusal to participate in settle the dispute amicably. The regional branch of the
multi-‐employer bargaining in writing, addressed to its Board may, upon agreement of the parties, treat a
corresponding exclusive bargaining agent or notice as a preventive mediation case. It shall also
employer. Negotiations may commence only with encourage the parties to submit the dispute to
regard to respective employers and labor unions who voluntary arbitration.
consent to participate in multi-‐employer bargaining.
During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any
(d) During the course of negotiations, consenting act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement
employers and the corresponding legitimate labor of the dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to
unions shall discuss and agree on the following: bargain collectively in good faith and to participate
fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings called
1) the manner by which negotiations shall proceed; by the regional branch of the Board.
2) the scope and coverage of negotiations and the A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be
agreements; and referred to alternative modes of dispute resolution,
including voluntary arbitration.
3) where appropriate, the effect of the negotiations on
current agreements or conditions of employment
4. Duty to Bargain
among the parties.
Arts. 250, supra p. 9
3. Conciliation/preventive mediation
Art. 233, supra p. 9

Art. 250(c,d,e), supra p. 9


Secs. 1, 2, 9, Rule XXII, Book V, Omnibus Rules

CONCILIATION, STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS Art. 253. Duty to Bargain Collectively When There
Exists a Collective Bargaining Agreement. – When there
Sec. 1. Conciliation of Labor-‐Management disputes. – is a collective bargaining agreement, the duty to
The board may, upon request of either of both parties bargain collectively shall also mean that neither party
or upon its own initiative, provide conciliation-‐ shall terminate nor modify such agreement during its
mediation services to labor disputes other than lifetime. However, either party can serve a written
notices of strikes or lockouts. Conciliation cases which notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least
are not subjects of notices of strike or lockout shall be sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be
docketed as preventive mediation cases. the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and
Sec. 2. Privileged Communication. – Information and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-‐day
statements given in confidence at conciliation period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
proceedings shall be treated as privileged parties.
communications. Conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding any

matter taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted
by them. Art. 242(c). Rights of legitimate labor organizations. –
A legitimate labor organization shall have the right:
Sec. 9. Action on Notice. – Upon receipt of the notice,
the regional branch of the Board shall exert all efforts c. To be furnished by the employer, upon written
at mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to request, with its annual audited financial statements,
11

including the balance sheet and the profit and loss increases. It also included a provision or quitclaim
statement, within thirty (30) calendar days from the wherein the Union absolved and released the
date of receipt of the request, after the union has been Company for any monetary claim that might have
existed prior to the signing of the agreement. Here, the
duly recognized by the employer or certified as the
Company contended that the Union had already
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the waived the wage distortion brought by RA 6640.
employees in the bargaining unit, or within sixty (60)
calendar days before the expiration of the existing Held: The wage distortion was already cured by the
new CBA wherein salary increases re-‐established and
collective bargaining agreement, or during the
broadened the gaps. Such CBA is more than a
collective bargaining negotiation; substantial compliance with R.A. No. 6640. A CBA is
the law between the parties when freely and
voluntarily entered into. The duty to bargain requires
that the parties deal with each other with open and
Art. 239(f) fair minds. A sincere endeavor to overcome obstacles
and difficulties that may arise, so that employer-‐
[Before amendment by RA 9481; there seems to be no employee relations may be stabilized and industrial
strife eliminated, must be apparent. The goal of
counterpart to this provision in the amended version
collective bargaining is the making of agreements that
of the grounds for cancellation of union registration.] will stabilize business conditions and fix fair standards
of working conditions.
Grounds for cancellation of union registration. – The
following shall constitute grounds for cancellation of
union registration:
Faculty Association of MAPUA v CA
f. Entering into collective bargaining agreements Facts: Mapua implemented a new faculty ranking
which provide terms and conditions of employment instrument as agreed upon in the new CBA. A month
below minimum standards established by law; after implementation, Mapua requested for
amendments as regards the faculty ranking and rates.
The Union opposed, claiming that the request was in
violation of their CBA.
Art. 248(g). Unfair labor practices of employers. – It Held: The proposed amendments were unauthorized
shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the modifications of the CBA. Art 253 of the LC states, as a
following unfair labor practice: general rule, that neither party to a CBA shall
terminate or modify the agreement during its lifetime.
g. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as
prescribed by this Code; D. The Collective Bargaining Agreement
1. Definition/Contents

Sec. 1(j), Rule I, Book 5, Omnibus Rules
Art. 249(c). Unfair labor practices of labor
"Collective Bargaining Agreement” or “CBA” refers to
organizations. – It shall be unfair labor practice for a
the contract between a legitimate labor union and the
labor organization, its officers, agents or
employer concerning wages, hours of work, and all
representatives:
other terms and conditions of employment in a
c. To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively bargaining unit.
with the employer, provided it is the representative of
the employees;
P.I. Manufacturing v P.I. Mfg. Supervisors’ and

Foremen Association
Facts: RA 6640 increased the statutory minimum wage
and salary rates of private employees. Subsequently,
the Union and the Company entered into a new CBA
whereby supervisors and foremen were given
12

Art. 260, supra p. 9 of settlement of labor disputes and copies of orders
and decisions of voluntary arbitrators. The file shall be
Effect of Sub-‐Standard Contract open and accessible to interested parties under
Art. 239(f). Grounds for cancellation of union conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
registration. – Employment, provided that no specific information
submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless
f. Entering into collective bargaining agreements authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in
which provide terms and conditions of employment any judicial litigation, or when public interest or
below minimum standards established by law; (This national security so requires.
no longer exists after Art. 239 was amended by RA
9481.) Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall
Lepanto Ceramics v Lepanto Ceramics Employee submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the
Association Regional Offices of the Department of Labor and
Employment for registration, accompanied with
Facts: Lepanto and the Employees Association entered
verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places
into a CBA which provided for the grant of a P3,000
Christmas bonus. The said bonus had been given since in the place of work and ratification by the majority of
1998. In 2002, the bonus came in the form of P600 and all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or
a cash advance equivalent to one month’s salary. The Regional Offices shall act upon the application for
association argued that this was a violation of the CBA. registration of such Collective Bargaining Agreement
Held: As a general rule, bonus is not a demandable and within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. The
enforceable obligation. However, in this case, the Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy
bonus is integrated into the CBA and thus partakes the of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5)
nature of a demandable obligation. It is a The CBA is days from its submission.
the law between the parties and they are obliged to
comply with its provisions. The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the
employer for every Collective Bargaining Agreement a

registration fee of not less than one thousand pesos
PAL v PALEA (March 12, 2008) (P1,000.00) or in any other amount as may be deemed
appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of Labor
Facts: CBA required PAL to pay 13th month pay and
Christmas bonus to its rank and file employees. But and Employment for the effective and efficient
PAL informed respondent PALEA that rank and file administration of the Voluntary Arbitration Program.
employees who were regularized after 30 April 1988 Any amount collected under this provision shall
were not entitled to the 13th month pay as they were accrue to the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
already given their Christmas bonuses on 9 December
1988. PALEA filed a complaint for unfair labor The Bureau shall also maintain a file and shall
practice. undertake or assist in the publication of all final
Held: 13th month pay or mid-‐year bonus is distinct decisions, orders and awards of the Secretary of Labor
from the Christmas Bonus. Since the payment of 13th and Employment, Regional Directors and the
month pay was agreed upon in the CBA, PAL is obliged Commission. (As amended by Section 15, Republic Act
to pay it. Where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
becomes the law between the parties, and compliance
therewith is mandated by the express policy of the
law.

2. Registration
Art. 231. Registry of unions and file of collective
bargaining agreements. – The Bureau shall keep a
registry of legitimate labor organizations. The Bureau
shall also maintain a file of all collective bargaining
agreements and other related agreements and records
13

Secs. 1-‐3, Rule XVII, Book V, Omnibus Rules bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of
the employees in such unit for the purpose of
REGISTRATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING collective bargaining. However, an individual
AGREEMENTS employee or group of employees shall have the right at
any time to present grievances to their employer.
Sec. 1. Where to File. – Within thirty (30) days from
execution of a collective bargaining agreement, the Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
parties thereto shall submit two (2) duly signed copies workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
of the agreement to the Regional Office which issued regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
the certificate of registration/certificate of chartered may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-‐
local of the labor union-‐party to the agreement. Where making processes of the establishment where they are
the certificate of creation of the concerned chartered employed insofar as said processes will directly affect
local was issued by the Bureau, the agreement shall be their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose,
filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction workers and employers may form labor-‐management
over the place where it principally operates. councils: Provided, That the representatives of the
workers in such labor-‐management councils shall be
Multi-‐employer collective bargaining agreement shall elected by at least the majority of all employees in said
be filed with the Bureau. establishment. (As amended by Section 22, Republic
Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
Sec. 2. Requirements for Registration. – The application
for CBA registration shall be accompanied by the
Mactan Workers Union v Aboitiz
original and two (2) duplicate copies of the following
documents which must be certified under oath by the Facts: The Company employed members of both
representatives(s) of the employer(s) and labor unions ALU and MWU. The Company entered into a
union(s) concerned: CBA with ALU on profit-‐sharing bonuses. MWU did not
receive its share and did not claim it, so the money
(a) the collective bargaining agreement; was returned to Cebu Shipyard.
Held: A CBA constitutes the law between the
(b) a statement that the collective bargaining bargaining parties, so those who are entitled to the
agreement was posted in at least two (2) conspicuous benefits under it can invoke its provisions. However,
places in the establishment or establishments the benefits of a CBA also extend to the laborers and
concerned for at least five (5) days before its employees not part of the chosen bargaining labor
organization. Otherwise, the purpose of the CBA,
ratification; and
which enables labor to secure better terms in
employment condition and better rates of pay, would
(c) a statement that the collective bargaining
be frustrated when non-‐members are deprived of
agreement was ratified by the majority of the advantages they could gain.
employees in the bargaining unit of the employer or
employers concerned. 4. Minutes of Negotiations
No other document shall be required in the Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Top Form v NLRC,
registration of collective bargaining agreements. supra
Held: The Union cannot claim that the proposal, as
Sec. 3. Payment of Registration Fee. – The certificate of found in the minutes of the negotiations, forms part of
registration of collective bargaining agreement shall the CBA. The minutes reflect the proceedings and
be issued by the Regional Office upon payment of the discussions undertaken in the process of bargaining
prescribed registration fee. for worker benefits. At the negotiations, it is natural
for both management and labor to adopt positions or
make demands and offer proposals and counter-‐
3. Beneficiaries proposalss. However, nothing is considered final until
Art. 255. Exclusive Bargaining Representation and the parties have reached an agreement.
Workers’ Participation in Policy and Decision-‐Making. –
The labor organization designated or selected by the
majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
14

5. Interpretation, Administration and Enforcement fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but
Art. 1700, Civil Code also to all the consequences which according to their
nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and
The relations between capital and labor are not merely law (Art. 1315, CC).
contractual. They are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common
good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the Dole Phils. v Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero
special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, Facts: Dole and the Union were in a dispute over the
strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working free meals provision in their CBA. Pursuant to this
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects. provision, some of Dole’s departments reverted to the
previous practice of granting free meals after exactly
Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union v three hours of actual overtime work. The others,
Norkis Trading Co. however, continued the practice of granting free meals
only after more than three hours of overtime work.
Facts: The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity
Board issued a wage order fixing a new minimum Held: After having interpreted similar provisions in
wage rate for private sector employees. Based on this, the 1985-‐88, 1990-‐95 and the 1993-‐1995
Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union wanted amendments to the 1990-‐1995 CBAs, the court ruled
an across-‐the-‐board increase in wages in accordance that employees are entitled to free meals once they
with the CBA. have rendered at least three hours of overtime work,
and not after they have worked more than three
Held: Denied. Norkis was already paying its employees hours. The CBA is the norm of conduct between Dole
above the existing minimum wage, and the wage order and PAMAO-‐NFL and compliance therewith is
was a “floor wage” increase. The CBA was no ordinary mandated by the express policy of the law.
contract, but one impressed with public interest.
Therefore, it was subject to special orders on wages b. Liberal construction
such as those issued by the RTWPB. Art. 1700, Civil Code, supra
a. Nature
Art. 1315, Civil Code Cirtek Employees Labor Union-‐FFW v Cirtek
Electronics
Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from Facts: Secretary of Labor ordered wage increases
that moment the parties are bound not only to the higher than what was in the MOA between the parties.
fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but Held: The Secretary of Labor, in the exercise of his
also to all the consequences which, according to their power to assume jurisdiction, may resolve all issues
nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and involved in the controversy including the award of
law. wage increases and benefits. The arbitral award can be
considered an approximation of a CBA which would
otherwise have been entered into by the parties.
Pantranco North Express v NLRC
Hence, it has the force and effect of a valid contractual
Facts: 3 employees were retired 25 years’ service obligation. While a contract constitutes the law
before age 60, pursuant to the compulsory retirement between the parties, this is so in the present case with
provision in the CBA. They filed complaints for illegal respect to the CBA, not to the MOA. A MOA, unlike a
dismissal. CBA, does not constitute the law between the parties.
But even assuming arguendo that the MOA is treated
Held: The CBA provision, allowing compulsory
as a new CBA, since it is imbued with public interest, it
retirement before age 60, but after 25 years of service,
must be construed liberally and yield to the common
is legal and enforceable. The law (Art. 287; Sec. 13,
good.
Rule I, Book VI) leaves to the employer and employees
the fixing of the age of retirement. Early retirement c. Grievance Procedure
does not constitute diminution of benefits. Rather, it
constitutes a reward of employment. Retirements Art. 255, supra p. 14
agreed upon by the employer and the employees in
their CBA are not dismissals. The terms and conditions
of a CBA constitute the law between the parties, and
bind not only the union, but also its members. The
parties to a contract are bound not only to the
15

Art. 260, supra p. 9 shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply
with the economic provisions of such agreement.
USAEU-‐FFW v CA
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional
Facts: There was a dispute between the Union and the Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment
Company about the computation of salary increases. shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters
Before preventive mediation proceedings with the
under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
NCMB were completed, the Union filed notice and
went on strike despite the Company’s insistence that Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
the CBA’s grievance mechanism and voluntary and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to
arbitration clauses should be followed. the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration
provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
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 parties were directed to voluntary arbitration.
The strike was illegal. Art. 262. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. – The
Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators,

upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and
Atlas Farm v NLRC decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor
practices and bargaining deadlocks.
Facts: Peña and Abion were fired by Atlas. They filed
complaints for illegal dismissal, but the complaints
were dismissed because the grievance machinery in
the CBA had not yet been exhausted. Peña and Abion
availed of the grievance process but were Art. 263(h). Strikes, picketing and lockouts. –
unsuccessful, so they re-‐filed with the NLRC. Atlas
contended that NLRC did not have jurisdiction, (h) Before or at any stage of the compulsory
because the CBA provided that jurisdiction belongs to arbitration process, the parties may opt to submit
the grievance machinery and then the voluntary their dispute to voluntary arbitration.
arbitrator.
Held: The NLRC had jurisdiction. A voluntary e. Contract Infirmity
arbitrator shall only have jurisdiction over
termination cases if they arise from interpretation or Associated Labor Unions v Calleja
implementation of the CBA, and interpretation and Facts: The Company recognized ALU as the sole and
enforcement of company personnel policies, which exclusive bargaining agent for its employees, and a
was not the case with Peña and Abion. CBA was executed. SPFL and NAMGAW went on strike
because of this recognition. BLR Director Calleja
d. Voluntary Arbitration ordered certification elections.
Art. 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel
Held: Calleja’s decision correct. The contract-‐bar rule
of Voluntary Arbitrators. – The Voluntary Arbitrator or (Art. 232) does not apply in this case because the CBA
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and was full of infirmities. (Infirmities: haste on the part of
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all the Company in recognizing union despite being
unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation aware that there were other unions existing in the
or implementation of the Collective Bargaining unit, failure to post the same in at least 2 conspicuous
places in the establishment at least 5 days before its
Agreement and those arising from the interpretation
ratification; 181 out of 281 workers who ratified the
or enforcement of company personnel policies same now strongly and vehemently deny and/or
referred to in the immediately preceding article. repudiate the alleged negotiations and ratification of
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining the CBA.)
Agreement, except those which are gross in character,
shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and
shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article,
gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement
16

f. Contract Ambiguity such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to

Art. 1702, Civil Code (not in syllabus) the day immediately following such date. If any such
agreement is entered into beyond six months, the
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor parties shall agree on the duration of retroactivity
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and thereof. In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of
decent living for the laborer. the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties may
exercise their rights under this Code. (As amended by
Holy Cross of Davao College v Holy Cross Faculty Section 21, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
Union
Facts: Legaspi, a teacher in the College, was selected as
a recipient of a scholarship granted by the Japanese
government. Pursuant to the provisions of the CBA Art. 256 par. 2
between the College and the Union, she requested to
be on study leave with grant-‐in aid. However, the At the expiration of the freedom period, the employer
school refused. shall continue to recognize the majority status of the
Held: The CBA as well as the school’s Policy Statement incumbent bargaining agent where no petition for
and Guidelines for Trips Abroad for Professional certification election is filed. (As amended by Section
growth are clear in stating that teaching personnel 23, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
who are selected as scholarship recipients are entitled
to a leave of absence with a grant-‐in-‐aid, provided
such grant is to promote their professional growth or
to enhance their studies in institutions of higher
learning. The provisions in the CBA as well as in the
Policy Statement are clear and need no interpretation.
Contracts which are not ambiguous are to be Secs. 7 & 8, Rule XVII, Book V, Omnibus Rules
interpreted according to their literal meaning and not
beyond their obvious intendment. Further, in case REGISTRATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
there be any doubt or ambiguity in the CBA, the AGREEMENTS
same should be resolved in favor of the union
members pursuant to Article 1702, CC. Sec. 7. Term of Representation Status; Contract Bar
Rule. – The representation status of the incumbent
g. Contract Duration and Renewal
exclusive bargaining agent which is a party to a duly
Art. 253, supra p. 12 registered collective bargaining agreement shall be for
a term of five (5) years from the date of the effectivity
of the collective bargaining agreement. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent
Article 253-‐A. Terms of a Collective Bargaining exclusive bargaining agent or petition for certification
Agreement. – Any Collective Bargaining Agreement election filed outside of the sixty-‐day period
that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the immediately preceding the expiry date of such five-‐
representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of year term shall be entertained by the Department.
five (5) years. No petition questioning the majority
status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be The five-‐year representation status acquired by the
entertained and no certification election shall be incumbent bargaining agent either through single
conducted by the Department of Labor and enterprise collective bargaining or multi-‐employer
Employment outside of the sixty-‐day period bargaining shall not be affected by a subsequent
immediately before the date of expiry of such five-‐year collective bargaining agreement executed between the
term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All other same bargaining agent and the employer during the
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement same five-‐year period.
shall be renegotiated not later than three (3) years
after its execution. Any agreement on such other Sec. 8. Renegotiation of Collective Bargaining
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Agreements. – All provisions of a collective bargaining
entered into within six (6) months from the date of agreement, except the representation status of the
expiry of the term of such other provisions as fixed in incumbent bargaining agent, shall, as a matter of right,
17

be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its

execution.
Union of Filipino Employees v NLRC, supra
The renegotiated collective bargaining agreement
Facts: The herein assailed NLRC resolution ordered
shall be ratified and registered with the same Regional that the new CBA would only be effective upon the
Office where the preceding agreement was registered. promulgation of the same resolution. Petitioner Union
The same requirements and procedure in the said the new CBA should have a retroactive effect,
registration of collective bargaining agreements beginning from the expiration of the old CBA.
prescribed in the preceding rules shall be applied. Held: As per Arts. 253 and 253-‐A, in the absence of
stipulation for retroactive effect of a new CBA, the
Meralco v Quisumbing parties are to keep the status quo (i.e. old CBA) during
the 60-‐day period prior to the expiration of the old
Facts: Meralco filed a Motion for Partial Modification CBA and/or until a new agreement is reached.
of an SC resolution holding that the arbitral award
shall retroact to the first day after the 6-‐month period
following the expiration of the last day of the CBA.
Meralco contended that there is nothing in Article FVC Labor Union – Phil. Transport & Gen. Workers
253-‐A which states that arbitral awards or renewals of Org. v Sama-‐samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa
a CBA shall always have retroactive effect. It noted FBC
that the Resolution was internally inconsistent, as the
reckoning date based on the body of the decision Facts: FVCLU-‐PTGWO signed a 5-‐year CBA with the
should be June 1, 1996, but in the dispositive, it was Company. Before the end of the 5-‐ years, the parties
December 1, 1995. Also, the Court’s ruling does not renegotiated the CBA and extended the same for
take into account the large cost the award imposed on another 4 years. Before the expiration of the original 5
Meralco (P800M). year-‐term, SANAMA-‐SIGLO filed for certification to
represent the employees, as the Labor Code provides a
Held: Balancing the contrasting interests of Meralco, maximum of 5-‐year term for representation status,
being in the industry imbued with public interest and and such can be challenged within 60 days prior to
the policy of social justice, the arbitral award in this expiration. FVCLU-‐PTGWO wanted SANAMA-‐SIGLO’s
case be made to retroact to the first day after the 6-‐ petition for certification dismissed, arguing that when
month period following the expiration of the last day the term of the CBA was extended, their exclusive
of the CBA: from June 1, 1996 to May 31, 1998. It bargaining status was similarly extended, and thus the
maintains the rule in the assailed resolution pro hac latter’s petition was filed outside the 60-‐days-‐before-‐
vice. expiration requirement.
Held: The extension of the CBA term has no legal effect
on the exclusive bargaining status of FVCLU-‐PTGWO,
Rivera v Espiritu & Laguesma which remained effective only for 5 years ending on
the original expiry date. While the parties may agree
Facts: PAL underwent serious losses. An agreement to extend the CBA’s original 5-‐year term together with
was created between PAL and the PAL Employees all other CBA provisions, any such amendment or term
Association (PALEA), with one condition stating that in excess of five years will not carry with it a change in
the CBA would be suspended for 10 years. Petitioners the union’s exclusive collective bargaining status.
filed a petition to annul the agreement, stating that it Under Art. 253-‐A, the exclusive bargaining status
violated the CBA limits in Article 253-‐A. cannot go beyond 5 years and the representation
Held: The SC held that it did not. It was a valid exercise status is a legal matter not for the parties to agree
of the freedom to contract, which PAL and PALEA upon.
entered into voluntarily. Under the principle of
inviolability of contracts guaranteed by the 1) Automatic renewal
Constitution, the contract must be upheld. Article 253-‐ Art. 253, last sentence, supra p. 12
A has a two-‐fold purpose. One is to promote industrial
stability and predictability. The other is to assign
specific timetables wherein negotiations become a

matter of right and requirement. Nothing in Article
253-‐A, prohibits the parties from waiving or Article 256 par. 2, supra p. 17
suspending the mandatory timetables and agreeing on
the remedies to enforce the same. PICOP Resources v Tañeca et al
18

Facts: Union members, upon demand by the Union terminated due to MOPI’s closure sued for illegal
president, were terminated for allegedly having dismissal and ULP.
campaigned for, supported, and signing the petition Held: When Caltex acquired MOPI it did not
for certification election which was filed by another automatically become an assignee of the CBA agreed
union (FFW) on the ground that it was as an act of upon by MOPI and its employees. Labor contracts are
disloyalty and a valid basis for termination for a cause not enforceable against a transferee of an enterprise;
in accordance with its constitution and by-‐laws and labor contracts being in personam, thus binding only
the Union Security Clause of the existing CBA. In between the parties.
terminating the employees, the Company cited Art.
253, which provides that "it shall be the duty of both i. CBA and Disaffiliation
parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full
force and effect the terms and conditions of the Elisco-‐Elirol Labor Union v Noriel
existing agreement during the 60-‐day period and/or
Facts: EELU-‐NAFLU executed a CBA with the
until a new agreement is reached by the parties” to
Company. Later, they decided to disaffiliate from
argue that they were bound by the Union Security
NAFLU. After such disaffiliation, the Company refused
Clause even after the CBA’s expiration.
to recognize EELU as a party to the CBA, it not being
Held: It is incumbent upon the employer to continue to the “same union” stated in the CBA (EELU-‐NAFLU).
recognize the majority status of the incumbent
Held: Unions have the right to disaffiliate themselves
bargaining agent even after the expiration of the
from their “mother union” in the common interest of
freedom only if no petition for certification election
their members and still be the same party as
was filed. In this case, 4 petitions were already filed.
stipulated in the CBA. The employees and members of
Thus, the Company obligation to recognize the
the local union did not form a new union, but merely
incumbent union does not hold true when petitions for
registered the local union pursuant to their right.
certification election were filed. Also, the last sentence
Upon joining a national union, the locals remained the
of Art. 253 provides for automatic renewal of
basic units of the association. Hence, it is free to
economic provisions only and does not include the
renounce affiliation for mutual welfare upon the terms
representational aspect of the CBA. An existing CBA
in the agreement which brought it into existence.
cannot constitute a bar to a filing of a petition for
certification election. When there is a representational
issue, the status quo provision in so far as the need to
await the creation of a new agreement does not apply. j. Jurisdiction
Policy Instruction No. 56, April 6, 1993

CLARIFYING THE JURISDICTION BETWEEN
GMC-‐ILU v GMC
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS AND LABOR ARBITERS
Before the expiration of the CBA, the Union sent a draft OVER TERMINATION CASES AND PROVIDING
CBA proposal and requested counterproposals from
GUIDELINES FOR THE REFERRAL OF SAID CASES
GMC. GMC failed to heed the request. NLRC ordered
the imposition of the draft proposal for the remaining ORIGINALLY FILED WITH THE NLRC TO THE NCMB
2 years duration of the original CBA.
In line with the policy of the Labor Code of the
Held: Considering that no new CBA had been, in the Philippines to promote and emphasize the primacy of
meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union,
free collective bargaining and negotiations, including
pursuant to Article 253 of the Labor Code, the
provisions of the imposed CBA continues to have full voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as
force and effect until a new CBA has been entered into modes of settling labor of industrial disputes, the
by the parties. The law does not distinguish between a following guidelines are hereby promulgated:
CBA duly agreed upon by the parties and an imposed
CBA. The draft proposal of the CBA that was imposed 1. Termination cases arising in or resulting from the
by the NLRC should be in effect for the remaining interpretation and implementation of collective
years. bargaining agreements and interpretation and
rd enforcement of company personnel policies which
h. CBA and 3 Party Liability
were initially processed at the various steps of the
Associated Labor Unions v NLRC plant-‐level Grievance Procedures under the parties’
Facts: MOPI was reorganized as MPI and was acquired collective bargaining agreements fall within the
by Caltex. MOPI’s former employees who were original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
19

arbitrator pursuant to Article 217 (c) and Article 261 possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only
of the Labor Code. by labor and management but government as well, be
exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent,
2. Said cases, if filed before a Labor Arbiter, shall be their adverse effects on such life and health, through
dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right
and referred to the concerned NCMB Regional Branch to strike and by management to lockout. In labor
for appropriate action towards an expeditious disputes adversely affecting the continued operation
selection by the parties of voluntary arbitrator or of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall
panel of arbitrators based on the procedures agreed be the duty of the striking union or locking-‐out
upon in the CBA. employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal
workforce of medical and other health personnel,
This issuance shall take effect immediately.
whose movement and services shall be unhampered
(SGD.) MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR, Secretary and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper
and adequate protection of the life and health of its
1) Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators vis-‐à-‐vis patients, most especially emergency cases, for the
Labor Arbiters duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases,
Art. 261, supra p. 16 therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
may immediately assume, within twenty four (24)
hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a
strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify
Art. 262, supra p. 16 it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For
this purpose, the contending parties are strictly
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions
and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of
Art. 263(g). Strikes, picketing and lockouts. – Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain
of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal
When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute or loss of employment status or payment by the
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an locking-‐out employer of backwages, damages and
industry indispensable to the national interest, the other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution
Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume against either or both of them.
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
the same to the Commission for compulsory The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have Philippines shall not be precluded from determining
the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to
impending strike or lockout as specified in the the national interest, and from intervening at any time
assumption or certification order. If one has already and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute
taken place at the time of assumption or certification, in order to settle or terminate the same.
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 Art. 217(a)(c). Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and
or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission. –
the Commission may seek the assistance of law
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this a. Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the
provision as well as with such orders as he may issue Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
to enforce the same. jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the
In line with the national concern for and the highest parties for decision without extension, even in the
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-‐
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent agricultural:
20

1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes; Manila Pavilion Hotel v Henry Delada

Facts: Delada was ordered by the Company to transfer
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those from the Rotisserie to Seasons Coffee Shop. He refused
cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of and brought it up to arbitration. The issue went all the
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of way up to the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. At the
employment; same time, the Company held administrative
proceedings and preventively suspended him for 30
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms days, and ultimately suspending him for 90 days as
of damages arising from the employer-‐employee penalty for insubordination. Delada said that the
relations; Company had no authority to do so since the issue was
already in arbitration.
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of Held: Although jurisprudence grants that the
this Code, including questions involving the legality of Voluntary Arbitrators can adjudicate issues corollary
strikes and lockouts; and to those presented to it, the Panel here did not
definitively rule on the insubordination of Delada.
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Hence, the Company did not lose authority to act on
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other the issue. An employer has the right to exercise its
right to discipline erring employees pursuant to
claims arising from employer-‐employee relations,
company rules and regulations.
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
2) Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
with a claim for reinstatement.
Art. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the
c. Cases arising from the interpretation or Commission. –
implementation of collective bargaining agreements
and those arising from the interpretation or a. Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration calendar days after the submission of the case by the
as may be provided in said agreements. (As amended parties for decision without extension, even in the
by Section 9, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-‐
Metro Drug Distribution v Metro Drug Corp. agricultural:
Employees Association
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
Facts: The Union filed a complaint for ULP before the
arbitration branch of the NLRC against the Company 2. Termination disputes;
for the latter’s alleged violations of CBA economic and
grievance machinery provisions. Metro Drug filed a 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those
motion to dismiss on the sole ground of lack of cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, contending that
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
the issues raised are exclusively cognizable by the
employment;
voluntary arbitrator (and not the Labor Arbiter).
Held: Certiorari was not the proper remedy. Metro 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms
Drug should have submitted its position paper as of damages arising from the employer-‐employee
ordered by the LA and raise therein the question of relations;
supposed lack of jurisdiction. In the event of
unfavorable judgment, it could thereafter raise the 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of
case, including the issue of jurisdiction, via appeal to
this Code, including questions involving the legality of
the NLRC as provided for in the Labor Code on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack strikes and lockouts; and
or excess of jurisdiction.
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
21

Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other termination disputes. On the other hand, under Article
claims arising from employer-‐employee relations, 261, a voluntary arbitrator has original and exclusive
including those of persons in domestic or household jurisdiction over grievances arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company policies. As
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
a general rule then, termination disputes should be
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied brought before a labor arbiter, except when the
with a claim for reinstatement. parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that
they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
b. The Commission shall have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. 3) RTC Jurisdiction
c. Cases arising from the interpretation or Halaguena v PAL

implementation of collective bargaining agreements Facts: Several female flight attendants of PAL
and those arising from the interpretation or questioned the validity of a provision of the PAL-‐
enforcement of company personnel policies shall be FASAP CBA providing for the compulsory retirement
of cabin attendants (females had a younger retirement
disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same
age). Eventually, they filed a case with the RTC, which
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration issued an order upholding its jurisdiction over the
as may be provided in said agreements. (As amended case.
by Section 9, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
Held: The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because.
Although the general rule is that the RTC has no
Negros Metal Corp. v Armelo J. Lamayo jurisdiction in disputes involving an employer-‐
Facts: Lamayo was terminated after 2 suspensions. He employee relationship, the resolution of the issue here
filed a complaint with LA for illegal dismissal. The entails not only the application of labor law. Rather,
company argued that LA had no jurisdiction since the primary relief sought involves the question of
their CBA provides that such matter should be first constitutionality and legality under international law
brought to the company’s grievance machinery. (Convention Eliminating All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women or CEDAW). The labor relationship
Held: LA had jurisdiction. Under Art. 217 of Labor here is only incidental or secondary.
Code, LA has original and exclusive jurisdiction over

Summary: Unfair Labor Practice
A. In general

1. Definition and general concept

Super general definition (Labor Code, Art. 212 (k))
• Any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Labor Code

General definition (Labor Code, Art. 246)
• Any abridgement of employees’ and workers’ right to self-‐organization
o Restrain, coerce, discriminate against, or unduly interfere in the exercise of the right
• ULP is related to the workers’ right to self-‐organization and to the observance of the CBA. Without that
element, the act, no matter how unfair, is not ULP as legally defined. (Azucena)
o EXCEPTION: Labor Code, Art. 248 (f) (to dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate
against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under the Labor Code)

Why are ULPs punished? (Labor Code, Art. 247)
• Violation of constitutional right to self-‐organization
• Inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management
• Disrupt industrial peace
• Hinder promotion of healthy and stable labor-‐management –relations
22

• Both violations of labor and management’s civil rights AND criminal offenses against the State

ULP vis-‐à-‐vis management prerogative; exception (Labor Code, Art. 263 (g))
• An act may not be considered a ULP if it’s a valid exercise of management prerogative.
• Management may regulate, according to its discretion or judgment, all aspects of employment, as long as it’s
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest, and not exercised in a malicious,
harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton manner. (Azucena)
• The law on ULP is not intended to deprive employers of their fundamental right to prescribe rules they
honestly believe to be necessary to the proper operation of their business (Philcom Employees v. Philcom)

2. Requisites

2 requisites of ULP:
1) Employer-‐employee relationship
o Why? ULP is a violation of the right to self-‐organize, a right exercisable by employees in relation to
their employer (Azucena)
o Art. 246 (non-‐abridgement of right to self-‐organization) says “any person,” so ULPs may also be
committed by the employer’s representative or agent.
2) Act must be specifically defined in the law
o Labor Code, Art. 212 (k) in relation to Art. 248 (ULPs committed by employers) and Art. 249 (ULPs
committed by labor organizations)

ULPs committed by employers (Labor Code, Art. 248)
Summary of ULPs committed by employers
Category (NOT official, only for mnemonic purposes) ULPs
Right to self-‐organization
Interference with
Formation/administration of labor organization
Terms and conditions of employment
Discrimination in regard to
Employee who testifies (retaliation)
Duty to bargain collectively
Violation of
CBA
Membership/withdrawal as condition of employment
Attitude towards labor organization Contracting out services/functions of members
Payment of negotiation/attorney’s fees as part of settlement

ULPs committed by labor organizations (Labor Code, Art. 249)
Summary of ULPs committed by labor organizations
Category (NOT official, only for mnemonic
ULPs
purposes)
Restraint/coercion of employees In the exercise of their right to self-‐organization
Duty to bargain collectively
Violation of
CBA
Discriminate against employee
Pay/deliver money or other things of value for services not performed
Causing or requesting employer to
(featherbedding)
Pay negotiation or attorney’s fees as part of settlement

3. Burden of proof

Basically, the burden of proof is on the party which alleges ULP.
• The union has the burden of proof to present substantial evidence to support its ULP allegations against
management. (Schering Employees v. Schering Plough)

4. Interpretation

Labor contracts are subject to special laws (e.g. laws on working conditions and wages).
23

• Why? Because the relations between labor and capital aren’t merely contractual; they are impressed with
public interest (Civil Code, Art. 1700).

In case of doubt, how should labor laws be interpreted?
• In favor of labor (Labor Code, Art. 4)
• In favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer (Civil Code, Art. 1702)

5. Inter-‐relations of ULP acts

• Justice Fernando's concurring opinion in Republic Saving Bank v. CIR explains the inter-‐relations of ULP acts.
(Note: while the decision refers to the first subsection Industrial Peace Act, such section is actually similar to
Art. 248 (a) and Art. 249 (b) of the Labor Code, hence the applicability of the explanation):

o The first subsection of the Industrial Peace Act on “interference, restraint, or coercion,” covering as it
does such a broad range of ULPs on the part of employers, is a catch-‐all provision for borderline
cases inimical to the right of self-‐organization or to collective bargaining justifying a finding of ULP.
The succeeding ULPs enumerated in the Act are designed not to impose limitations or restrictions
upon the general guarantees of the first, but rather to spell out with particularity some of the
practices that have been most prevalent and most troublesome. It’s impossible to specify in precise
and unmistakable language each incident which constitutes a ULP, so it’s up to the court to apply the
Act’s general prohibitory language in the light of infinite combinations of events which may be
charged as violative of its terms. (Republic Savings Bank v. CIR, concurring opinion of Justice
Fernando)

B. Acts violative of right to self-‐organization

1. Interference, restraint, and coercion (Labor Code, Art. 248 (a) and Art. 249 (a))

Art. 248 (a) and Art. 249 (a) provide GENERAL grants of protection, from which all the other cases of ULP in those
provisions are derived (Bar Ops 2007 reviewer):
• Art. 248 (a) – employers who interfere, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-‐
organization
• Art. 249 (a) – labor organizations who restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self
organization

Aside from the fact that Art. 248 refers to ULPs committed by employers while Art. 249 refers to ULPs committed
by labor organizations, one notable difference between the 2 provisions is the word “interfere.”
• “Interfere” is not included in Art. 249 because any act of a labor organization amounts to interference with
the right to self-‐organization. (Bar Ops 2007 reviewer)

a. Interrogation
• “Blue Flash Doctrine” (from Bar Ops 2007 reviewer, citing Blue Flash Express)
o An employer is not denied the privilege of interrogating its employees as to their union affiliation,
provided the same is for a legitimate purpose and assurance is given by the employer that no
reprisals would be taken against unionists
• Questioning of employees concerning union membership and activities, made in such a way as to hamper the
exercise of free choice on the part of the employees, constitutes ULP (Scoty’s v. Miller; Philippine Steam
Navigation Co. v. Philippine Marine Officers Guild)

b. Speech, espionage, economic coercion
• Speech
o A company commits ULP when it writes letters to employees containing “bribes” and threats of
dismissal to induce strikers to return to work. Such letters, when taken together with the other
24

circumstances, aren’t protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution (Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.).
• Espionage
o A company commits ULP when there is good ground to believe that a former union member was
made to spy on union activities and testify against union members on behalf of the company. (Insular
Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.)
• Economic coercion
o A company commits ULP when it offers “bribes,” e.g. bonuses to “loyal” employees and wage
increases to strikers in exchange for returning to work.

c. Concerted activities
• A company commits ULP when it doesn’t permit all of its employees to join a mass demonstration against
alleged police abuses (Philippine Blooming Mills v. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization)

2. Non-‐union membership or withdrawal of membership as a condition of employment (yellow-‐dog contract)
(Labor Code, Art. 248 (b))

“Yellow-‐dog contract”
• Promise exacted from workers or prospective employees that they will not belong to nor form a union during
their employment (Azucena)

A company commits ULP when it refuses to admit seasonal workers (whose services it had engaged in previous
seasons) belonging to a particular union, and tells such workers that they must leave that union if they want to
continue working for the company (Visayan Stevedore Trans. Co. v. CIR)

3. Contracting out to discourage unionism (Art. 248 (c))

Subcontracting is NOT always tantamount to ULP.
• 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 reasons (e.g. decline in business, inadequacy of equipment, need
to reduce cost) (Azucena)

4. Company domination of union (Art. 248 (d))

What’s a “company union”? (Art. 212)
• Any labor organization whose formation, function or administration has been assisted by any act defined as
ULP by the Labor Code

Common manifestations (Azucena, citing Philippine American Cigar):
• Initiation by the employer of the company union idea
o Outright formation of the union by the employer
o Employee formation of the union upon employer’s demand/influence
o Employee formation motivated by management
• Financial support to union
o Union expenses
o Attorney’s fees
• Employer encouragement and assistance
o Immediately recognizing a union as SEBA without first determining if it represents the majority
• Supervisory assistance
o Soliciting membership
o Permitting union activities during working hours

5. Discrimination to discourage/encourage unionism (Art. 248 (e), Art. 249 (b))

Discrimination in regard to what?
• Terms and conditions of employment (e.g. wages, hours of work)

25

Why discriminate?
• To discourage/encourage membership in a labor organization

Who commits ULP?
• The employer who discriminates
• The labor organization which causes or attempts to cause the employer to discriminate

Discrimination vs. differentiation/classification
• There are valid differentiations based on differences in job requirements. It’s not ULP when management
classifies jobs with varying pay/benefits. (Azucena)

a. Discriminatory discharge
• If the main reason for discharging the employee is his union activities, then it doesn’t matter if a lawful cause
of discharge is also available (not a defense). (Azucena)

b. Valid discrimination: union security clause

Union security clause
• In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs
only to determine and prove that:
o The union security clause is applicable.
o The union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA
o There is sufficient evidence to support the decision of the union to expel the employee from the
union (General Milling Corp. v. Casio)

Summary of union security clauses
(Taken from Bar Ops 2007 reviewer)
Hiring Continued employment Ground for termination
Closed shop Must become union Must be union member all If not a union member
member at time of throughout at anytime
hiring
Union shop May be hired even if Must become union Does not become union
not union member member after reasonable member after
time reasonable time
Maintenance of Already union member Must maintain membership Disaffiliates from union
membership at time of hiring

Closed shop
• No person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is,
becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely
comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part (General Milling Corp. v. Casio)

Union shop
• All new regular employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a condition for their
continued employment (Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. NLRC)

Maintenance of membership shop
• Employees who are union members as of the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition for continued employment until they are
promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated (Alabang Country Club, Inc.
v. NLRC)

c. Collection of agency fees (Labor Code, Art. 248 (e))
26

Employees in the bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be
assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective
bargaining agent, if such non-‐union members accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement.

Legal basis of union’s right to agency fees?
• Quasi-‐contractual, to prevent non-‐union members’ unjust enrichment. (Del Pilar Academy, et al. v. Del Pilar
Academy Employees’ Union)

6. Retaliatory discharge or retaliation for testimony against employer/indirect discrimination (Labor Code, Art.
248 (f))

What constitutes retaliation?
• To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being
about to give testimony under the Labor Code
• Employer’s motive is immaterial – may or may not have been motivated by anti-‐union attitude (Azucena)
• Nature of employee’s testimony is immaterial – may or may not pertain to union matter (Azucena)

A company commits ULP when it drops an employee’s grievance case after the employee testifies against the
company in a certification election hearing. (Itogon-‐Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Baldo)

7. Illegal exaction – featherbedding (Art. 249 (d))

What’s illegal exaction/featherbedding?
• To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or 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,
including the demand for fee for union negotiations
• Creating or spreading employment by unnecessarily maintaining or increasing the number of employees or
amount of time used for a job (Azucena)

Why is it ULP?
• Economically wasteful and without any legitimate employee justification (Azucena, citing Cox, Bok, German,
Cases and Materials on Labor Law)
• In the case of union negotiation fees, the resulting CBA would probably be a “sweetheart contract” i.e. one
that doesn’t substantially improve employees’ wages and benefits (Azucena)

C. Acts violative of right to collective bargaining
1. Violation of duty to bargain (Art. 248 (g))

Duty to bargain collectively (Art. 252)
• Performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the
purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including
proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement, and executing a contract
incorporating such agreements, if requested by either party
• Does NOT compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession
• If there’s a CBA…
o Neither party shall modify or terminate the agreement during its lifetime, but can serve a written
notice to do so at least 60 days prior to its expiration date
o Both parties must keep status quo during 60-‐day period prior to its expiration date and/or until a
new agreement is reached
• If there’s no CBA…
o Employer and representative of employees still have duty to bargain collectively

Who commits ULP?
• Employer who violates duty to bargain collectively
• Labor organization which violates duty to bargain collectively or refuses to bargain with employer, provided
it’s the representative of the employees
27

Summary of procedure in collective bargaining (Art. 250)
1) Party #1 serves written notice (with proposals; Party #2 must reply within 10 days from receipt
2) In case of differences, either party may request for conference to be held within 10 days from request
3) If dispute not settled, NCMB may intervene and call for conciliation meetings
4) During conciliation, parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt/impede early settlement
5) NCMB shall exert all efforts to settle all disputes amicably and encourage parties to submit case to voluntary
arbitrator

A company cannot dissolve something provided for in the existing CBA. The duty to bargain is a continuous
process which imposes on the parties the obligation to live up to the terms of the agreement. (Shell Oil Workers
Union v. Shell Co. of the Philippines, Ltd.)

During negotiations, management has a right to insist on its position to the point of stalemate. Reaching an
impasse does not evidence bad faith. (Union of Filpro Employees – DFAI Unions KMU v. Nestle Phils., Inc.)

Duty to resume negotiations
• While the law makes it an obligation for the employer and the employees to bargain collectively with each
other, such compulsion does not include the commitment to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of
the other. All it contemplates is that both parties should approach the negotiation with an open mind and
make reasonable effort to reach a common ground of agreement (CABEU-‐NFL v. Central Azucarera de Bais)

2. Gross violation of collective bargaining agreement (Labor Code, Art. 248 (i), Art. 249 (f), and Art. 261)

Only GROSS violation of the CBA constitutes ULP.
• Under Art. 248 (i) and Art. 249 (f), violation of the CBA by either the employer or labor organization would
constitute ULP. But Art. 261 provides that “violations of a CBA, except those which are gross in character,
shall no longer be treated as ULP.”
• To be heard and decided by a Labor Arbiter

What is a gross violation of the CBA? (Art. 261)
• Flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA

What happens if it’s just a violation of the CBA? (Art. 261)
• Resolved as grievance under the CBA
• If can’t be resolved through the grievance machinery, then to be heard and decided by a Voluntary Arbitrator

If employer acts in good faith, merely acting on the request of some workers, then it’s not a gross violation of the
CBA. (Arellano University Employees and Workers Union v. CA)

Violation of seniority rule in promotions is a ULP over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. But violation of
grievance procedure in CBA is not ULP because it’s not an economic provision. (San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. SMC
Employees Union)

D. Motive, conduct, proof

1. Employer motive and proof
• In determining whether a discharge is discriminatory, the true reason for the discharge must be established.
While union activity is no bar to a discharge, the existence of a lawful cause for discharge is no defense if the
employee was actually discharged for union activity. (Phil. Metal Foundries, Inc. v. CIR)

2. Totality of evidence
• 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 taken as a whole raise a suspicion as to the motivation
for the employer’s action, the failure of the employer to ascribe a valid reason therefor may justify an
inference that his conduct towards the employee was inspired by the latter’s union membership or activities
(Royal Undergarments Corp. of the Phil. v. CIR)
28

• A.k.a. “Totality of conduct” doctrine – the culpability of an employer’s remarks is to be evaluated not only on
the basis of their implications, but against the background of collateral circumstances (Azucena)

E. Enforcement, remedies, and sanctions
1. Parties against whom ULP committed

Employer (Art. 212 (e))
• Includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly
• Does not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer.

Employee (Art. 212 (f))
• Includes any person in the employ of an employer
• Not limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Labor Code so explicitly states
• Includes any individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute
or because of any unfair labor practice, if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular
employment

Labor organization (Art. 212 (g))
• Any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment

2. Parties liable

Summary of parties liable
Who committed the ULP? Who is criminally liable?
Officers
Employer
Agents
Officers
Members of governing boards
Labor organization Representatives
Agents
Members
Not natural person (corporation, trust, firm,
Officers
partnership, association or any other entity)

Punishment for violators of Labor Code provisions (Art. 288)*
Filipino Alien
Fine (Php1,000-‐Php10,000), Fine (Php1,000-‐Php10,000),
Imprisonment (3 mos-‐3 yrs), or Imprisonment (3 mos-‐3 yrs), or
Both fine + imprisonment Both fine and imprisonment
PLUS: Summary deportation after completion of
sentence

*EXCEPTIONS:
-‐ If otherwise provided in the Labor Code
-‐ Acts complained of hinge on interpretation/implementation of ambiguous provisions of existing CBA

3. Prosecution and prescriptive period

Prescriptive periods (Art. 290)
• Offenses punished under the Labor Code and implementing rules and regulations prescribe within 3 years
o But if ULP, must be filed with appropriate agency within 1 year, or else forever barred

a) Civil aspect (Art. 247)
• May include claims for damages (actual, moral, exemplary, etc.), attorney’s fees, and other affirmative relief
• Recovery in the administrative proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code
29

• Under jurisdiction of Labor Arbiter, who shall resolve the case within 30 days from submission
• During pendency of proceedings, the running of prescriptive period of criminal offense is interrupted
• Final judgment is not binding in criminal case nor evidence of guilt

b) Criminal aspect (Art. 247)
• May not be instituted without a final judgment finding that ULP was committed having first been obtained in
the administrative proceedings
• Under the concurrent jurisdiction of the ff. (Art. 288):
o Municipal Courts
o City Courts
o Courts of First Instance
• Running of prescriptive period is interrupted during pendency of administrative proceedings
• Final judgment in administrative proceedings not binding

4. Compromise
• ULP cases are not, in view of the public interest involved, subject to compromises. (CCLC E.G. Gochanco
Workers Union v. NLRC)

5. Remedies and sanctions

Appeal (Art. 223)
• Who may appeal?
o Either or both parties
• When to appeal?
o Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter must be appealed to the NLRC within 10 days from
receipt
 Otherwise, become final and executory
• What must be done?
o Appellant must furnish memorandum of appeal to other party, who must answer within 10 days
from receipt
• How long does it take?
o NLRC shall decide within 20 days, decision becomes final and executory 10 days after receipt by
parties
• Grounds:
o Prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on part of LA
o Decision, award, or order secured through fraud or coercion
o Purely questions of law
o Serious errors in finding of facts which would cause grave or irreparable injury to appellant
• Conditions:
o If monetary award, perfected only by posting cash or surety bond of equivalent amount
o If order reinstating dismissed/separated employee, reinstatement aspect is immediately executory,
even pending appeal and even upon posting by employer of bond
o If frivolous or dilatory appeal, LA/NLRC shall impose reasonable penalty

Damages
• It is proper to award moral and exemplary damages to illegally dismissed employees if dismissal was tainted
with ULP. Moral damages may be awarded when the dismissal is tainted with bad faith or fraud, or is an act
oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary
damages may be awarded if the dismissal was done in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. (Quadra v.
CA)

30

VIII. Unfair Labor Practice
A. In general exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees
and other affirmative relief, shall be under the
1. Definition and general concept jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. The Labor Arbiters
Art. 212 (k). Definitions. shall give utmost priority to the hearing and resolution
of all cases involving unfair labor practices. They shall
(k) “Unfair labor practice” means any unfair labor resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar days
practice as expressly defined by the Code. form the time they are submitted for decision.
Recovery of civil liability in the administrative

Art. 246. Non-‐abridgment of right to self-‐organization. proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code.
It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce,
No criminal prosecution under this Title may be
discriminate against or unduly interfere with
instituted without a final judgment finding that an
employees and workers in their exercise of the right to
unfair labor practice was committed, having been first
self-‐organization. Such right shall include the right to
obtained in the preceding paragraph. During the
form, join, or assist labor organizations for the
pendency of such administrative proceeding, the
purpose of collective bargaining through
running of the period of prescription of the criminal
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
offense herein penalized shall be considered
lawful concerted activities for the same purpose for
interrupted: Provided, however, that the final
their mutual aid and protection, subject to the
judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not
provisions of Article 264 of this Code. (As amended by
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as
Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980)
evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of
the requirements therein set forth. (As amended by

Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980 and later
further amended by Section 19, Republic Act No. 6715,
Art. 247. Concept of unfair labor practice and
March 21, 1989)
procedure for prosecution thereof.
Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right

of workers and employees to self-‐organization, are ULP vis-‐à-‐vis management prerogative; exception
inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and
Art. 263 (g). Strikes, picketing, and lockouts.
management, including their right to bargain
collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an (g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute
atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect, disrupt causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industrial peace and hinder the promotion of healthy industry indispensable to the national interest, the
and stable labor-‐management relations. Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only
the same to the Commission for compulsory
violations of the civil rights of both labor and
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have
management but are also criminal offenses against the
the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
State which shall be subject to prosecution and
impending strike or lockout as specified in the
punishment as herein provided.
assumption or certification order. If one has already
Subject to the exercise by the President or by the taken place at the time of assumption or certification,
Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers all striking or locked out employees shall immediately
vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, return-‐to-‐work and the employer shall immediately
the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor resume operations and readmit all workers under the
practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike
31

or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or stipulation that there was no employer-‐employee
the Commission may seek the assistance of law relationship between SMC and the workers. SMC
enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this Employees Union advised SMC through a letter that
some of the Lipercon and D’Rite workers had signed
provision as well as with such orders as he may issue
up for membership and sought regularization. Union
to enforce the same. filed two notices for strike and eventually, several
pickets were staged by Lipercon and D’Rite workers in
In line with the national concern for and the highest various SMC plants. SMC filed a Complaint for
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and Injunction and Damages with the RTC. Union
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent case/nature of the action.
possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only Held: Court held that Art. 212(1) of the Labor Code
by labor and management but government as well, be applies. Though SMC insists that no employer-‐
exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent, employee relationship exists between itself and the
their adverse effects on such life and health, through contractual workers, a labor dispute can nevertheless
the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right exist regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relationship of employer and employee,
to strike and by management to lockout. In labor
provided that the controversy concerns the terms and
disputes adversely affecting the continued operation conditions of employment or a change thereof. Also,
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall Art. 217(1) expressly gave jurisdiction to the Labor
be the duty of the striking union or locking-‐out Arbiter over cases of unfair labor practice cases, cases
employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal involving wages, hours of work, terms and conditions
workforce of medical and other health personnel, of employment, and those cases involving the legality
whose movement and services shall be unhampered of strikes and lockouts.
and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper
and adequate protection of the life and health of its
patients, most especially emergency cases, for the Philcom Employees v Philcom
duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases, Facts: PEU filed 2 notices of strike against Philcom, on
therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment the basis of ULP and bargaining deadlock (due to acts
may immediately assume, within twenty four (24) of the employer such as the contractualization of
hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a positions in the company and offers or promotions to
strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify union members) . During a conciliation meeting, they
it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For agreed to consolidate the 2 notices, and to maintain
the status quo pending the proceedings. However, PEU
still staged a strike. Upon petition by Philcom, the
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction. The Secretary
and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of ruled that there was no ULP because the acts
Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain complained of are a valid exercise of management
of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal prerogative.
or loss of employment status or payment by the Helds: The acts complained of are not considered as
locking-‐out employer of backwages, damages and ULP under Art 248. They are a valid exercise of
other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution management prerogative. Such exercise of
against either or both of them. management prerogative has always been respected
by the Court because the law on ULP is not intended to
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the deprive employers of their fundamental right to
Philippines shall not be precluded from determining prescribe rules as they honestly believe to be
necessary to the proper operation of their business.
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
in order to settle or terminate the same. Culili v Eastern Telecom
Facts: Nelson was a Senior Technician for Eastern
San Miguel v. Bersamira Telecom. When the company entered into dire
financial straits, it implemented a two-‐phase Right-‐
Facts: SMC entered into contracts for merchandising
Sizing Plan, for which reason they negotiated and
services with Lipercon and D’Rite, with the express
32

consulted with ETEU, the recognized bargaining can only be committed within the context of an
representative. The first phase involved a special employer-‐employee relationship.
retirement program, which Nelson refused. Later,
when the second phase involving restructuring was b. Act must be specifically defined in the law
implemented, Nelson’s position was deemed Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be
redundant and he was terminated accordingly. LA and unlawful for an employer to commit any of the
NLRC found that the dismissal was illegal, and that
following unfair labor practice:
there was ULP.
Held: The SC defined ULP as “acts that violate the (a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
workers' right to organize.” The prohibited acts are the exercise of their right to self-‐organization;
related to the workers' right to self-‐organization and
to the observance of a CBA. All the prohibited acts (b) To require as a condition of employment that a
constituting unfair labor practice in essence relate to person or an employee shall not join a labor
the workers' right to self-‐organization. Thus, an
organization or shall withdraw from one to which he
employer may only be held liable for unfair labor
practice if it can be shown that his acts affect in belongs;
whatever manner the right of his employees to self-‐
organize. Court ruled that there was a valid (c) To contract out services or functions being
redundancy, in that ETPI fulfilled the requirements of performed by union members when such will interfere
good faith and reasonable standards. Because ETPI with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
negotiated with ETEU, it could not be said that there their rights to self-‐organization;
was ULP, especially considering that there was a valid
termination. (d) To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere
with the formation or administration of any labor
2. Requisites organization, including the giving of financial or other
a. Employer-‐employee relationship support to it or its organizers or supporters;

(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work
Sterling Products v Sol and other terms and conditions of employment in
order to encourage or discourage membership in any
Facts: Sol filed a complaint against the firm for
labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any
underpayment, money equivalent of her vacation
leave, and Christmas bonus. Because of her complaint, other law shall stop the parties from requiring
she was dismissed without just cause. Sol charged membership in a recognized collective bargaining
Sterling Products Int’l and its Radio Director with ULP. agent as a condition for employment, except those
employees who are already members of another union
Held: Sol was merely an employee and was not
connected with any labor organization, nor has she at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining
ever attempted to join a labor organization, or to agreement. Employees of an appropriate bargaining
assist, or contribute to a labor organization. The unit who are not members of the recognized collective
company cannot, therefore, be considered as having bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee
committed an unfair labor practice. equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members
of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such
non-‐union members accept the benefits under the
American President Lines v Clave collective bargaining agreement: Provided, that the
individual authorization required under Article 242,
Facts: Individual members of the Marine Security
Union filed a case for unfair labor practice against paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-‐
American President Lines, alleging that the company members of the recognized collective bargaining
did not heed their repeated requests to negotiate in agent;
behalf of the union, and that they were dismissed
solely because of their union activities. (f) To dismiss, discharge or otherwise prejudice or
Held: The Court found that there was no employer-‐ discriminate against an employee for having given or
employee relationship between APL and the individual being about to give testimony under this Code;
complainants. In the absence of such relationship, APL
cannot be guilty of unfair labor practice because such (g) To violate the duty to bargain collectively as
prescribed by this Code;
33

(h) To pay negotiation or attorney’s fees to the union The provisions of the preceding paragraph
or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any notwithstanding, only the officers, members of
issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or governing boards, representatives or agents or
members of labor associations or organizations who
(i) To violate a collective bargaining agreement. have actually participated in, authorized or ratified
unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
(As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August
notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of
21, 1981)
corporations, associations or partnerships who have
actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair 3. Burden of proof
labor practices shall be held criminally liable. (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, Schering Employees v Schering Plough
1981) Facts: SELU (union) and its President Sereneo filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal against Schering Plough Corporation,
alleging that the company terminated Sereneo’s
services on account of her being the Union President.
Art. 249. Unfair labor practices of labor organizations.
It shall be unfair labor practice for a labor Held: The Court upheld the validity of the dismissal
organization, its officers, agents or representatives: after finding that Sereneo’s infractions breached the
trust reposed in her by the company. The accusation of
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of union busting is bereft of any proof. The union has the
burden of proof to present substantial evidence to
their right to self-‐organization. However, a labor
support its allegations, and it is not enough that the
organization shall have the right to prescribe its own union believed that the employer committed acts of
rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of unfair labor practice when the circumstances clearly
membership; negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a
belief.
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against an employee, including Interpretation
discrimination against an employee with respect to Art. 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the
whom membership in such organization has been implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
denied or to terminate an employee on any ground this Code, including its implementing rules and
other than the usual terms and conditions under regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
which membership or continuation of membership is
made available to other members;
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively Art. 1700, Civil Code
with the employer, provided it is the representative of
the employees; The relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are so impressed with public
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or interest that labor contracts must yield to the common
deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the
things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining,
services which are not performed or not to be strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
performed, including the demand for fee for union conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
negotiations;

(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; or
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
34

Art. 1702, Civil Code this bank, but also of the bank itself.”
Held: Their dismissal constituted an unfair labor
In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor practice. Even assuming that they acted in their
contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and individual capacities, they were nonetheless protected
decent living for the laborer. for they were engaged in concerted activity in the
exercise of their right of self-‐organization that includes
concerted activity for mutual aid and protection.
(Concurring Opinion: The dismissal amounted to
Caltex Filipino Managers v CIR “Interference, restraint or coercion” as prohibited in
the Industrial Peace Act. The four succeeding unfair
Facts: Caltex refused to recognize the Supervisors and labor practices are designed not to impose limitations
Managers' Association because it was arguing that or restrictions upon the general guarantees of the first,
managerial employees are not qualified for but rather to spell out with particularity some of the
membership in a labor organization. Company wanted practices that have been most prevalent and most
to institute a certification proceeding, but the troublesome. The first subsection on "interference,
Association felt disinclined to do this. Despite this, the restraint or coercion" covering as it does such a broad
company initiated a certification proceeding. range of undesirable practices on the part of
Eventually, the Association filed a Notice to Strike on employers could easily be seized upon (i.e. a catch-‐all
the ground of unfair labor practice. provision), where a borderline case, inimical to the
right of self-‐organization or to collective bargaining,
The Company filed a case, praying among others, to
presents itself as justifying a finding of an unfair labor
declare the strike of Caltex Filipino Managers and
Supervisors Association “illegal”. The CIR decided that practice)
the strike was illegal and absolved the Company from
unfair labor practices. B. Acts violative of right to self-‐organization
Held: There is substantial, credible and convincing 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
evidence that appear on record which established
beyond doubt the ULP of the company. Pursuant to the Art. 248 (a), supra p. 33
mandate of Art. 24 CC that courts must be vigilant for
the protection of one at a disadvantage—the
Association in this case being the party at a Art. 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and
disadvantage—adequate affirmative relief must be
workers’ participation in policy and decision-‐making.
awarded. It is imperative that in order to attain the
laudable objectives of RA 875 (Act to Promote The labor organization designated or selected by the
Industrial Peace), the provisions should be liberally majority of the employees in an appropriate collective
construed in favor of employees and strictly against bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of
the employer, unless otherwise intended by the the employees in such unit for the purpose of
statute itself. collective bargaining. However, an individual
employee or group of employees shall have the right at
Inter-‐relations of UPL acts
any time to present grievances to their employer.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,
workers shall have the right, subject to such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment
Art. 249, supra p. 34 may promulgate, to participate in policy and decision-‐
making processes of the establishment where they are
Republic Savings Bank v CIR employed insofar as said processes will directly affect
their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose,
Facts: Employees wrote a letter-‐charge to the bank
president demanding his resignation on the grounds of workers and employers may form labor-‐management
immorality, nepotism in the appointment and councils:
favoritism as well as discrimination in the promotion
of bank employees. They were discharged on the Provided, That the representatives of the workers in
ground that they wrote and published a “patently such labor-‐management councils shall be elected by at
libelous letter… tending to cause dishonor, discredit, least the majority of all employees in said
or contempt not only of the officers and employees of establishment. (As amended by Section 22, Republic
35

Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) respondents, alleging that respondents transferred
them to its sub-‐company, Lubas Transport, to prevent
them from forming a union. The LA and NLRC held

that petitioners were not guilty of unfair labor
practice.
Art. 277 (g), (h). Miscellaneous provisions.
Held: Court held that petitioners were indeed guilty of
(g) The Ministry shall help promote and gradually unfair labor practice by transferring respondents and
develop, with the agreement of labor organizations then refusing to properly operate Lubas Transport.
and employers, labor-‐management cooperation Respondents’ transfer of work assignments to Lubas
was a subterfuge to frustrate their right to organize
programs at appropriate levels of the enterprise based themselves into a union. Evidence of petitioners'
on the shared responsibility and mutual respect in unfair labor practice is shown by the established fact
order to ensure industrial peace and improvement in that, after respondents' transfer to Lubas, petitioners
productivity, working conditions and the quality of left them high and dry insofar as the operations of
working life. (Incorporated by Batas Pambansa Bilang Lubas was concerned.
130, August 21, 1981)
k. Interrogation
(h) In establishments where no legitimate labor Scoty’s Department Store v Micaller
organization exists, labor-‐management committees
Facts: Nena Micaller was working as a salesgirl in
may be formed voluntarily by workers and employers
Scoty’s Dept. Store. She formed a union. After forming
for the purpose of promoting industrial peace. The the union and affiliating with the National Labor
Department of Labor and Employment shall endeavor Union, she was repeatedly questioned about her union
to enlighten and educate the workers and employers membership and activities, before eventually being
on their rights and responsibilities through labor terminated.
education with emphasis on the policy thrusts of this Held: Questioning of employees concerning union
Code. (As amended by Section 33, Republic Act No. membership and activities and disparaging remarks
6715, March 21, 1989) by supervisory employees made in such a way as to
hamper the exercise of free choice on the part of the
employees, have been uniformly condemned as a
violation of the Act
Art. 249 (a), supra p. 34
General Milling v CA Philippine Steam Navigation Co v Phil Marine

Officers
Facts: GMC refused to negotiate the new terms of the
CBA with its union while the 5-‐year representation Facts: Philippine Marine Officers Guild wanted to
period of the union was still in effect. The union had bargain collectively with Philippine Steam Navigation
sent a proposed draft of a new CBA to GMC.GMC Co. Philsteam demanded proof that PMOG represented
resorted to delaying tactics like forcing some members the majority of its employees, and started its own
to submit letters of resignation from the union. investigation even before PMOG could reply to the
demand. PMOG eventually filed a notice of strike
Held: GMC committed ULP by interfering with the alleging unfair labor practices on the part of Philsteam.
right of employees to self-‐organization. The 13 letters
made by the 13 union members signifying their Held: Philsteam did indeed commit unfair labor
resignation from the union clearly indicated that GMC practices by interfering with its employees’s exercise
exerted pressure on its employees. Also, the fact that of the right to self-‐organization. A company subjecting
the resignations of the union members occurred its employees to a series of questions regarding their
during the pendency of the case before the labor membership in the union or their union activities in
arbiter shows GMC’s desperate attempts to cast doubt such a way as to hamper the exercise of free choice on
on the legitimate status of the union. their part constituted unfair labor practice.
l. Speech, espionage, economic coercion

Prince Transport v Diosdado Garcia
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Assn. v
Facts: Petitioners filed complaints against
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd.
36

Facts: Unions jointly submitted proposals to modify demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. CIR ruled that
the renewal of their respective CBAs. Negotiations PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith and its officers
were conducted but there was a deadlock. The Unions were ordered to be dismissed.
eventually went on strike. To try and get the Held: The Company is guilty of unfair labor practice as
employees back to work, the Companies sent two defined in the Industrial Peace Act (RA 875). Section 3
letters. In the first, they “bribed” the workers with guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in
promises of free meals, comfortable cots, overtime concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection".
pay, free coffee and occasional movies, as well as more Section 4(a-‐1) regards as an unfair labor practice for
benefits for their families while in the second, they an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce
subtly threatened the strikers by saying that they employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in
could no longer hold the strikers’ positions open and Section Three. It is not necessary that union activity be
by giving an ultimatum. The Companies also involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated
attempted to break the picket lines, filed criminal as long as the concerted activity is for the furtherance
charges against some strikers, and used two of their of their interests. The mass demonstration was for
employees who were the former legal counsels of the their mutual aid and protection against alleged police
Unions. abuses. Hence, the company’s action constituted as
Held: Companies were guilty of violating the interference to their right to engage in concerted
employees’ right to organize, form and join labor activity.
organizations. They committed unwarranted acts of
interference in trying to “bribe” the strikers to go back 3. Non-‐union membership or withdrawal from
to work, threatening them with eventual dismissal, membership as a condition of employment (yellow-‐
and in utilizing the former legal counsels of the Unions dog contract)
in negotiations. The letters containing such bribes and
threats, when taken together with other
circumstances, are not covered by the free speech Art. 248 (b), supra p. 33
provisions of the Constitution. Court also said that the
ff. were likewise violative of the right to self-‐
organization: the offer of a Christmas bonus to all Visayan Stevedore Trans Co v CIR
"loyal" employees of a company shortly after the Facts: VISTRANCO’s workers were supplied by UFWA,
making of a request by the union to bargain; wage a labor organization. The laborers have regularly
increases given for the purpose of mollifying worked for the company during every milling seasons.
employees after the employer has refused to bargain One day the company refused to engage the services of
with the union, or for the purpose of inducing striking respondents. According to the respondents, it was
employees to return to work; the employer's promises because of their union activities, but the Company was
of benefits in return for the strikers' abandonment of arguing that they were not its employees but workers
their strike in support of their union; and the whose services were merely supplied to them by
employer's statement, made about 6 weeks after the UFWA.
strike started, to a group of strikers in a restaurant to
the effect that if the strikers returned to work, they Held: Regarding the charge of the ULP against the
would receive new benefits in the form of company, such charge is substantially borne out by the
hospitalization, accident insurance, profit-‐sharing, and evidence of record, it appearing that the workers
a new building to work in. There was also good ground which were not admitted to work were precisely those
to believe that a former union member was made to belonging to the UFWA and the Branch Manager had
spy on union activities and testify against union told them point-‐blank that severance of their
members on behalf of the company. connection with the UFWA was the remedy if they
wanted to continue working with the company. This
m. Concerted activities act done by the company is considered ULP.
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization Contracting out to discourage unionism
v Philippine Blooming Mills
Art. 248 (c), supra p. 33
Facts: PBMEO carried out a mass demonstration at
Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the
Pasig police department. PBMEO gave the company
two days' prior notice. Company insisted that the first
shift workers should not be required to participate in
the demonstration and that the workers in the second
and third shifts should be utilized for the
37

4. Company domination of union Held: The dismissals were valid. The dismissal of the
Art. 248 (d), p. 33 employees on the basis of a union security clause
embodied in the CBA is recognized and accepted in
this jurisdiction. The terminated employees were also
accorded due process.
There is union shop when all new regular employees
Art. 212 (i). Definitions.
are required to join the union within a certain period
as a condition for their continued employment.
“Company union” means any labor organization whose
formation, function or administration has been There is maintenance of membership shop when
assisted by any act defined as unfair labor practice by employees who are union members as of the effective
this Code date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a
condition for continued employment until they are
Progressive Development Corp v CIR promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or
Facts: 48 ACEA employees were dismissed. ACEA filed the agreement is terminated.
a complaint in behalf of the employees, asserting that
they were dismissed because of their failure to resign
from ACEA and refusal to associate with PEU. They
General Milling Corp. v Casio
also claim that PEU was created by the company
merely to stave off ACEA’s recognition. Facts: Casio et al. were dismissed by GMC pursuant to
their union’s resolution that they no longer enjoyed
Held: SC ruled that based on the evidence presented
good standing within the collective.
and the actions of PDC, it can be concluded that the
employees were indeed dismissed because of their Held: The SC upheld the validity of the expulsion from
refusal to resign from ACEA and to affiliate with PEU. the union and subsequently, from work, pursuant to
It was shown that the company had a hand in the union security provisions in the CBA. However, GMC
formation of PEU. It can also be seen that PEU was did not accord Casio et al. with due process when it
organized to camouflage the company’s dislike for effected the termination.
ACEA and to stave off their recognition.
A closed shop may be defined as an enterprise in
which, by agreement between the employer and his
5. Discrimination to discourage/encourage
employees or their representatives, no person may be
unionism
employed in any or certain agreed departments of the
Art. 248 (e), supra p. 33 enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the
duration of the agreement, remains a member in good
standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which
the employees in interest are a part.
Art. 249 (b), supra p. 34 In terminating the employment of an employee by
enforcing the union security clause, the employer
a. Discriminatory discharge needs only to determine and prove that:
(1) the union security clause is applicable;
b. Valid discrimination: union security clause –
requisites (2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the
union security provision in the CBA; and
Closed shop
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision
Union Shop of the union to expel the employee from the union.
Maintenance of membership

Alabang Country Club, Inc. v NLRC
PICOP Resources, Inc. v Tañeca
Facts: Union officers were found to have malversed
the Union funds. The Union invoked the security Facts: Employees were dismissed for alleged acts of
clause in its CBA and asked the Club to terminate the disloyalty which violates the union security clause in
officers charged. The Club made its own investigation the CBA. The alleged acts were the signing of the
upon receipt of the Union’s request that the 3 officers employees of the authorization of petition for
be terminated. The officers were dismissed. certification election. The employees sued the
employer for unfair labor practice.
38

Held: They were illegally dismissed. The requisites for 7. Illegal exaction – featherbedding
terminating the employment of an employee were not Art. 249 (d), supra p. 34
met. There was not enough evidence to justify the
expulsion of the employees from the union. They
merely signed authorizations and not actual petitions.
C. Acts violative of right to collective bargaining
Also, an existing CBA does not constitute a bar to a
petition for certification election. 1. Violation of duty to bargain
Art. 248 (g), supra p. 33
c. Collection of agency fees
Art. 248 (e), supra p. 33
Del Pilar Academy, et. al, v Del Pilar Academy Art. 249 (c), supra p. 34
Employees Union
Facts: The union successfully negotiated for additional
benefits under the CBA. The union asked Del Pilar that
agency fees be deducted from the salaries of Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. The
employees (who were not members of the union but following procedures shall be observed in collective
benefited under the new CBA). Del Pilar refused. bargaining:
According to it, it was not authorized by the
employees to deduct agency fees from their salaries a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it
and that said benefits were not due to the CBA alone
shall serve a written notice upon the other party with
but were mandated by law.
a statement of its proposals. The other party shall
Held: The agency fees should be deducted from the make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar
salaries of non-‐members of the union who benefited
days from receipt of such notice;
under the CBA. No requirement of written
authorization from the non-‐union employees is
b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice
necessary if the non-‐union employees accepted the
benefits resulting from the CBA. The employee's and reply, either party may request for a conference
acceptance of benefits resulting justifies the deduction which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days
of agency fees from his pay and the union's from the date of request.
entitlement thereto. The legal basis of the union's right
to agency fees is neither contractual nor statutory, but c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall
quasi-‐contractual, deriving from the established intervene upon request of either or both parties or at
principle that non-‐union employees may not unjustly its own initiative and immediately call the parties to
enrich themselves by benefiting from employment conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power
conditions negotiated by the bargaining union.
to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the
6. Retaliatory discharge or retaliation for testimony parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the
against employer/indirect discrimination parties to participate fully and promptly in the
Art. 248 (f), supra p. 33 conciliation meetings the Board may call;
d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board,

the parties are prohibited from doing any act which
Itogon-‐Suyoc Mines Inc. v Baldo
disputes; and
Facts: Baldo was dismissed for no justifiable reason.
There was ongoing certification election hearing. In e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes
exchange for not testifying in the case, the labor amicably and encourage the parties to submit their
relations officer of ISM offered to reinstate him. When
case to a voluntary arbitrator. (As amended by Section
he went on and testified against ISM, his own case
before the grievance committee was dropped. 20, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
Held: ISM is guilty of unfair labor practice. He didn’t do
anything grave to warrant dismissal.

39

Art. 251. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of guard section because, even though the same is
normally within its management prerogative, such
collective bargaining agreements. In the absence of an
section is covered and provided for in the existing
agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing collective bargaining contract. The company thus
for a more expeditious manner of collective violated the collective bargaining contract when it
bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and the dissolved the security guard section. The duty to
representatives of the employees to bargain bargain is a continuous process which imposes on the
collectively in accordance with the provisions of this parties the obligation to live up to the terms of the
Code. agreement. As such, it is undeniable that non-‐
compliance to the agreement constitutes an unfair
labor practice. Consequently, the strike held by the
Union was not illegal because it was only made as a
response to the company’s commission of an unfair
Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The labor practice.
duty to bargain collectively means the performance of
a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours Union of Filipro Employees – DFAI Unions KMU v
Nestle Phil. Inc.
of work and all other terms and conditions of
employment including proposals for adjusting any Facts: The union initiated the CBA negotiations with
grievances or questions arising under such agreement Nestle since their existing CBA was about to expire.
and executing a contract incorporating such Nestle was of the firm stance that unilateral grants
including, but not limited to retirement plans, are not
agreements if requested by either party but such duty
proper subjects of the negotiations. The union filed
does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to two notices of strike -‐ the first one predicated on an
make any concession. alleged bargaining deadlock while the second one on
alleged unfair labor practices on the part of Nestle. In
an earlier decision, the SC held that Nestle was not
guilty of committing any unfair labor practice.
Art. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists Held: Nestle is not guilty of committing any unfair
a collective bargaining agreement. When there is a labor practice. For a charge of unfair labor practice to
collective bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain prosper, it must be shown that Nestle was motivated
collectively shall also mean that neither party shall by “ill will … or was oppressive to labor …” in
disclaiming unilateral grants (e.g. retirement plan) as
terminate nor modify such agreement during its
proper subjects in the negotiations. The management
lifetime. However, either party can serve a written had a right to insist on its position to exclude the
notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least retirement plan issue to the point of stalemate.
sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be Reaching an impasse does not evidence bad faith.
the duty of both parties to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and a. Duty to resume negotiations
conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-‐day CABEU-‐NFL v Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc.
period and/or until a new agreement is reached by the
Facts: After CBA negotiations between the union
parties. (CABEU-‐NFL) and company CAB resulted in a
deadlock, the union filed a Notice of Strike with NCMB,
Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co. of the Phils. Ltd. which assumed jurisdiction and summoned the parties
to conciliation conferences. After receiving the union’s
Facts: Shell wanted to dissolve its security guard
request for further conciliation conferences, CAB
section and replace it with an outside agency, despite
replied that such would serve no lawful or practical
its being embraced in and assured by an existing
purpose because the majority of the R&F employees in
collective bargaining contract. As a response, the
the bargaining unit had withdrawn their support for
Union held a strike. The Company argued that the
the union and organized themselves into a new union,
move to dissolve the security guard section is within
known as CABELA, which had already concluded its
its management prerogative. CIR decided in favor of
own CBA with CAB.
the Company, holding that the strike was illegal.
Held: CAB is NOT guilty of ULP by refusing to bargain
Held: Shell is precluded from dissolving the security
collectively. There was no showing of ill will/bad
40

faith/fraud, oppression to labor, or acting in a manner Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
contrary to morals/good customs/public policy on and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to
CAB’s part, nor of social humiliation/wounded the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration
feelings/grave anxiety on the union’s part. CAB’s
provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
actions were NOT tantamount to anti-‐unionism, the
evil sought to be punished in ULP cases. While the law
makes it an obligation for the employer and the Arellano University Employees and Workers Union
employees to bargain collectively with each other, v CA
such compulsion does not include the commitment to Facts: Union accused the University of ULP. Among
precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other accusations, the University allegedly committed
other. All it contemplates is that both parties should “Union Busting” by withholding union dues (those
approach the negotiation with an open mind and make penalties that are supposed to be remitted to the
reasonable effort to reach a common ground of Union from members’ salaries because of unexcused
agreement absences from meetings). However, due to an intra-‐
union conflict arising from suspicion in relation to
2. Negotiation of attorney’s fees auditing, some members requested the University to
Art. 248 (h), supra p. 33 withhold the dues from the Union.
Held: For ULP to exist, there must be a gross violation
of the CBA. There is no such gross violation here.
Art. 249 (e), supra p. 34 University acted in good faith, merely acting on the
request of some workers. Gross violation of the CBA
3. Gross violation of collective bargaining means flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply
agreement with the economic provisions thereof.
Art. 248 (i), supra p. 33
San Miguel Foods, Inc. v SMC Employees Union

Art. 249 (f), supra p. 34 Facts: The union filed a complaint for ULP against
SMFI. SMFI contends that the complaint was not a ULP,
that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction, and that it
should be resolved through the grievance machinery
provided for in the CBA.
Art. 261. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel
of Voluntary Arbitrators. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Held: The SC ruled that the Union’s charge that SMFI
panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and violated the seniority rule in promotions was a ULP
over which the LA has jurisdiction.
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all
unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation SMFI committed large scale and wanton unjust
or implementation of the Collective Bargaining discrimination in matters of promotion and
committed gross and blatant violations of the CBA,
Agreement and those arising from the interpretation
regarding job security and the grievance machinery.
or enforcement of company personnel policies The alleged ULP committed under 248(i), for violation
referred to in the immediately preceding article. of a CBA, is not a ULP either because for such ULP
Accordingly, violations of a Collective Bargaining there must be 1) gross violation of the CBA and 2) the
Agreement, except those which are gross in character, violation pertains to the economic provisions of the
shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and CBA. The grievance machinery provision in the CBA is
shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective not an economic provision.
Bargaining Agreement. For purposes of this article,
D. Motive, conduct, and proof
gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement
shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply 1. Employer motive and proof
with the economic provisions of such agreement.
Phil. Metal Foundries, Inc. v CIR
The Commission, its Regional Offices and the Regional Facts: The Union filed a complaint for ULP against
Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment Philippine Metal Foundries Inc. for terminating the
shall not entertain disputes, grievances or matters union President due to union activities. The company
under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the denied the charge, stating it terminated the union
41

President due to repeated absences. ascribe a valid reason therefor may justify an
inference that his unexplained conduct with respect to
Held: In determining whether a discharge is
the particular employee was inspired by the latter’s
discriminatory, the true reason for the discharge must
union membership or activities.
be established. While union activity is no bar to a
discharge, the existence of a lawful cause for discharge
is no defense if the employee was actually discharged
E. Enforcement, remedies, and sanctions
for union activity. The union President did incur
numerous absences. If the company wanted to 1. Parties against whom ULP committed
terminate his services on the ground of absences, it Art. 248, supra p. 33
could have done so as early as March 1963. He was
only terminated after he asked the company for a
grievance conference regarding union problems.
The question of whether an employee was discharged Art. 249, supra p. 34
because of his union activities is essentially a question
of fact as to which the findings of the Court of
Industrial Relations are conclusive and binding if

supported by substantial evidence considering the
record as a whole. This is so because the Industrial Art. 212 (e), (f), (g).
Court is governed by the rule of substantial evidence,
rather than by the rule of preponderance of evidence Definitions.
as in any ordinary civil cases. Substantial evidence has
been defined as such relevant evidence as a e) “Employer” includes any person acting in the
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The
a conclusion. It means such evidence which affords a term shall not include any labor organization or any of
substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be its officers or agents except when acting as employer.
reasonably inferred.
f) “Employee” includes any person in the employ of an
2. Totality of evidence employer. The term shall not be limited to the
Royal Undergarment Corporation of the Phils. v employees of a particular employer, unless the Code
CIR so explicitly states. It shall include any individual
whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection
Facts: Cruz was the president of the Union. He sent
CBA proposals to the company, after which he and his with any current labor dispute or because of any
wife were fired. After the Union called a strike, they unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other
were only reinstated on the condition that the Union substantially equivalent and regular employment.
win the consent election for collective bargaining
agent, which the union did. Less than a year later, Cruz g) “Labor organization” means any union or
was fired a second time after he was accused of being association of employees which exists in whole or in
drunk and threatening the lives of his co-‐workers. part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of
Cruz claimed he was only trying to convince them to
dealing with employers concerning terms and
join a nationwide strike that their federation was
calling for. conditions of employment.
Held: Royal was guilty of unfair labor practice because 2. Parties liable for acts
Cruz’s two terminations from employment had
nothing to do with his performance as an employee a. Employer
but his aggressive promotion and participation in
Art. 248, last paragraph
union activities. An employer may treat freely with an
employee and is not obliged to support his actions
Unfair labor practices of employers.
with a reason or purpose. However, where the
attendant circumstances, e.g. the history of the
The provisions of the preceding paragraph
employer’s past conduct and like considerations,
coupled with an intimate connection between the notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of
employer’s action and the union affiliations or corporations, associations or partnerships who have
activities of the particular employee taken as a whole actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair
raise a suspicion as to the motivation for the labor practices shall be held criminally liable. (As
employer’s action, the failure of the employer to
42

amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, The provisions of the preceding paragraph
1981) notwithstanding, only the officers, members of
governing boards, representatives or agents or
members of labor associations or organizations who
have actually participated in, authorized or ratified
Art. 288. Penalties. Except as otherwise provided in unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.
this Code, or unless the acts complained of hinge on a (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August
question of interpretation or implementation of 21, 1981)
ambiguous provisions of an existing collective
bargaining agreement, any violation of the provisions
of this Code declared to be unlawful or penal in nature
shall be punished with a fine of not less than One Art. 288, supra
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or imprisonment of not
less than three months nor more than three years, or
both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of Art. 289, supra
the court.
In addition to such penalty, any alien found guilty shall

be summarily deported upon completion of service of
Art. 290, supra
sentence.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, National Labor Union v CIR
any criminal offense punished in this Code, shall be Facts: Estanislao sold Everlasting to Ang, while CBA
under the concurrent jurisdiction of the Municipal or negotiations were ongoing. The CBA was entered into
City Courts and the Courts of First Instance. (As between Estanislao and the union. Ang later dismissed
amended by Section 3, Batas Pambansa Bilang 70) some workers of Everlasting. The union filed a
complaint for ULP against Everlasting and Ang. The
CIR found them guilty. Upon motion for
reconsideration, Estanislao was made a party to the
case, and the CIR found that Estanislao is guilty of ULP,
Art. 289. Who are liable when committed by other than and dismissed the complaint against Ang.
natural person. If the offense is committed by a
Held: Ang is also guilty of ULP. The circumstances of
corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or the case show that Ang is aware of the labor issues in
any other entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon Everlasting even before he bought the company. The
the guilty officer or officers of such corporation, trust, circumstances indicate that Ang and Estanislao
firm, partnership, association or entity. participated in unfair labor practices.
3. Prosecution and prescriptive period
Art. 290. Offenses. Offenses penalized under this Code a. Civil aspect
and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto Art. 247, paragraphs 2-‐4
shall prescribe in three (3) years.
Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for
All unfair labor practice arising from Book V shall be prosecution thereof.
filed with the appropriate agency within one (1) year
from accrual of such unfair labor practice; otherwise, Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only
they shall be forever barred. violations of the civil rights of both labor and
b. Labor organization State which shall be subject to prosecution and
Art. 249, last paragraph punishment as herein provided.
Unfair labor practices of labor organizations. Subject to the exercise by the President or by the
43

Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers employees waived their economic demands in the
vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code, light of an order issued by LA in other cases involving
the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor the same parties.
practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, Held: The company is guilty of unfair labor practice
exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and the employees were illegally dismissed. The
and other affirmative relief, shall be under the suspension of the employees was an interference of
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. The Labor Arbiters the company with the employee’s right to self-‐
organization. Unfair labor practice cases are not, in
shall give utmost priority to the hearing and resolution
view of the public interest involved, subject to
of all cases involving unfair labor practices. They shall compromises.
resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar days
from the time they are submitted for decision. Remedies and sanctions
Recovery of civil liability in the administrative a. Civil remedies

proceedings shall bar recovery under the Civil Code. Art. 247, paragraphs 2-‐3

prosecution thereof.
Art. 290, supra. p 43
Consequently, unfair labor practices are not only
violations of the civil rights of both labor and
b. Criminal aspect
Art. 247, last paragraph
State which shall be subject to prosecution and
punishment as herein provided.
prosecution thereof.
Subject to the exercise by the President or by the
No criminal prosecution under this Title may be Secretary of Labor and Employment of the powers
instituted without a final judgment finding that an vested in them by Articles 263 and 264 of this Code,
unfair labor practice was committed, having been first the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor
obtained in the preceding paragraph. During the practices, which may include claims for actual, moral,
pendency of such administrative proceeding, the exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees
running of the period of prescription of the criminal and other affirmative relief, shall be under the
offense herein penalized shall be considered jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. The Labor Arbiters
interrupted: Provided, however, that the final shall give utmost priority to the hearing and resolution
judgment in the administrative proceedings shall not of all cases involving unfair labor practices. They shall
be binding in the criminal case nor be considered as resolve such cases within thirty (30) calendar days
evidence of guilt but merely as proof of compliance of from the time they are submitted for decision.
the requirements therein set forth. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Bilang 70, May 1, 1980 and later
further amended by Section 19, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989) Art. 233. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the
Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed
to the Commission by any or both parties within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions,
awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained
only on any of the following grounds:
4. Compromise
CCLC E.G. Gochanco Workers Union v NLRC a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of
discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;
Facts: The company suspended those employees who
attended the hearing for certification election. The
b) If the decision, order or award was secured through
company then terminated some employees on the
ground that its contract with the US Airforce had fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;
expired. On appeal, the company argued that the
44

c) If made purely on questions of law; and

Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular
d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised employment, the employer shall not terminate the
which would cause grave or irreparable damage or services of an employee except for a just cause or
injury to the appellant. when authorized by this Title. An employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
reputable bonding company duly accredited by the equivalent computed from the time his compensation
Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
award in the judgment appealed from.
reinstatement. (As amended by Section 34, Republic
Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989)
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar
b. Penal remedies
as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall
immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The Art. 247, last paragraph, supra p. 44
employee shall either be admitted back to work under
the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal or separation or, at the option of the
employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The Art. 288-‐290, supra p. 43
posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the
execution for reinstatement provided herein.
To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the Quadra v CA

Commission or the Labor Arbiter shall impose Facts: Geronimo organized the rank-‐and-‐file and
reasonable penalty, including fines or censures, upon supervisory employee unions of PCSO and actively
the erring parties. participated in their activities. He ended up charged
with neglect of duty and misconduct and was found
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the guilty, and a day later, PCSO sent him a letter of
memorandum of appeal to the other party who shall dismissal. Geronimo then cried illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice, and also filed a complaint for
file an answer not later than ten (10) calendar days
damages before the CIR.
from receipt thereof.
Held: Dismissal was tainted with bad faith because he
The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty was charged before the CSC due to his participation in
(20) calendar days from receipt of the answer of the union activities and then terminated his services a day
after the CSC decision was rendered. A dismissed
appellee. The decision of the Commission shall be final
employee is entitled to moral damages when the
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from
dismissal is tainted with bad faith or fraud, or is an act
receipt thereof by the parties. oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to
good morals, good customs or public policy.
Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the Exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the was done in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
Commission in the enforcement of decisions, awards manner. It is proper to award moral and exemplary
or orders. (As amended by Section 12, Republic Act damages to illegally dismissed employees if dismissal
No. 6715, March 21, 1989) was tainted with ULP.
45

Summary: Union Concerted Activities

A. Basis of Right to Engage in Concerted Activities
1. Constitution
• The State shall…guarantee the rights of all workers to self-‐organization, collective bargaining negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law (Art. XIII, Sec. 3)
• The right [to strike] should be read with a libertarian latitude in favor of labor. “The constitutional recognition
of the right to strike does serve as a reminder that injunctions (against strike) should be reduced to the barest
minimum (Bisig ng Manggagawa v NLRC)

2. Statutory
• It is the policy of the State
o to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining negotiations (voluntary arbitration,
mediation, conciliation)
o to promote free trade unioniusm
o to foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement (Art. 211-‐A (a)-‐(c))

• Strikes, picketing, and lockouts
o Workers have a right to engage in concerted activities for:
• Purposes of collective bargaining
• Mutual benefit and protection (263(b))
o Legitimate labor organizations have a right to strike and picket and employers have the right to lockout,
consistent with the national interest
• Exception: labor unions and employers may not exercise these rights on grounds involving inter-‐
union and intra-‐union disputes. (263(b))
o Engaging in concerted activities (see Scope of the Term Strike below) is a guaranteed right of the
workers in order for them to attain their objectives. Likewise, management is also allowed to engage in
lockout:
• Lockout-‐ temporary refusal to furnish work an account of a labor dispute (Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa v NLRC)
o Legality of these activities for both employers and employees usually depends on the legality of the
purpose and can be restricted by law or contract. (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC)
* Note: Constitution  “In accordance with law”. Labor Code  “Consistent with national interest”
3. Limitations
• The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled
carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only
46


after the most thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and
in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements and strictures, such
as a defiance of a return-‐to-‐work order in industries affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal,
to the detriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect. (BLT Bus Co v NLRC)

B. Strike
1. Definition
• Any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor
dispute (212(o), Book V, Rule I, Sec. 1 (uu))
o “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
arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand
in the proximate relation of employer and employee (Art. 212 (l))
• A valid strike presupposes the existence of a valid labor dispute (G&S Transport Corp v Tito Infante)
• Art. 263 LC provides the procedural requirements for a valid strike:
1. A notice of strike, with the required contents, filed with the DOLE, Regional Branch of the NCMB, copy
furnished the employer
2. Cooling-‐off period between filing of notice and actual execution of strike:
• 30 days – bargaining deadlock
• 15 days-‐ unfair labor practice
• No need to observe period in case of union busting, where the union’s existence is threatened
3. Before strike actually commenced, a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting with a 24-‐hour
prior notice to NMCB. Decision to declare strike requires a secret-‐ballot approval of the majority of the
total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned
4. Result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least 7 days before the intended strike or
lockout, subject to the cooling-‐off period. (Pilipino Telephone Corp v PILTEA, Bukluran v CA)
• The requirements in Art. 263 are mandatory in nature and failure to comply therewith renders the strike illegal
(Pilipino Telephone Corp v PILTEA, Bukluran v CA)]

• The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument of labor
for its protection against exploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers are able to press their
demands for better terms of employment with more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as
their reaction to the employer's intransigence (BLT Bus Co v NLRC)

3. Rationale for Regulation by Law
• It is a weapon that can either breathe life to or destroy the union and its members in their struggle with
management for a more equitable due of their labors, therefore, the decision to strike must rest on a rational
47


basis. Our laws require the decision to strike to be the consensus of majority because even if the majority is not
infallible, it is still the best hedge against haste and error. Besides, a majority vote assures the union that it will
go to war against management with the support of the majority. (Lapanday Workers Union v NLRC)

4. Scope of the term “strike”
• Strike can mean work stoppages, slowdowns, mass leaves, attempts to damage equipment, and other similar
activities (some examples taken from Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC) (Sta Rosa v CCBP)
• Picketing -‐marching to and fro at the employer’s premises, usually accompanied by the display of placards and
other signs;
* DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STRIKE AND A PICKET: To strike is to withhold or to stop work by the concerted
action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Picketing focuses on publicizing the labor
dispute and its incidents to inform the public of what is happening in the company struck against. A strike may
be accompanied by a picket. (Phimco v Phimco)
• Slowdown -‐ "strike on the installment plan"; a willful reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of
workers for the purpose of restricting the output of the 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. (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC)
• Sit-‐down/Sympathetic strike -‐ the striking employees have no demands or grievances of their own, but they
strike for the purpose of directly or indirectly aiding others, without direct relation to the advancement of the
interest of the strikers (G&S Transport v Infante). It is one where workers stop working but do not leave their
place of work.
• Boycotts -‐ concerted refusal to patronize employer’s goods or services and persuade others to a like refusal
• Wild-‐cat Strike – One declared and staged without filing the required notice of strike and without the majority
approval of the recognized bargaining agent

5. Effect on Work Relationship
• Responsibility for the illegal acts committed during a strike must be on an individual and not a collective basis
(Chuayuco Steel v Buklod ng Manggagawa)
• Art. 264, in providing the consequences of an illegal strike, makes a distinction between union officers and
members who participated therein:
1. Union Officers-‐ knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for termination of
employment

2. Union Members-‐ mere participation in an illegal strike isn’t sufficient ground for termination. There
must also be illegal acts committed by the union member (i.e. there must be substantial evidence of the
illegal acts during the strike + striker who participated in the illegal acts must be identified) (G&S
Transport Corp v Tito Infante, Chuayuco Steel v Buklod ng Manggagawa)

• The principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor remains as the basic factor in determining the award of
backwages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless, of course, the
laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise
illegally prevented from working. But for this to apply, it is required that the strike be declared legal. (G&S
Transport Corp v Tito Infante)

48


6. Types and Conversion

• Economic strikes – strike made to force wage or other concessions from the employer, which he is not required
by law to grant (Master Iron Labor v NLRC) During the pendency of an economic strike, an employer may
take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying places left by the strikers (Consolidated Labor v
Marsman and Co.)

a. Unfair Labor Practice
o Cooling-‐off period: 15 days before the intended date (263 (c))
o Who can file notice:

1. Employers may file notice of lockout
2. For employees, duly Certified or recognized bargaining agent may file notice of strike
• In the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, a legitimate labor
organization may file the notice in behalf of its members. (263 (c))
• In holding a strike on the ground of unfair labor practice, it is not even required that there be an actual unfair
labor practice by the employer. It suffices if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor as the inducing
factor for staging a strike. (Shell Oil v Shell Co)
• “[Generally] a strike, otherwise valid, if violent in character may be placed beyond the pale. Care is to be
taken, however, especially where an unfair labor practice is involved, to avoid stamping the strike with
illegality just because it is tainted by such [violent] acts… Responsibility in such a case should be individual
and not collective” (Shell Oil v Shell Co)

b. Bargaining Deadlock
o Cooling-‐off Period: 30 days before the intended date (263(c))
o Who can file notice

1. Employers may file notice of lockout
2. For employees, duly Certified or recognized bargaining agent may file notice of strike (Note: in
the absence of such bargaining agent, the provision doesn’t say who can file in behalf of the
employees.)

c. Dismissal 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
o Cooling-‐off Period: 15-‐day cooling off period doesn’t apply, but the mandatory requisites (strike vote,
report to DOLE of strike vote, and the 7-‐day strike ban) still apply (263(c), Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 7)
Requisites for Union-‐busting under Art. 263:

o
1. Dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union
constitution and by-‐laws
2. Existence of the union must be threatened by such dismissal

d. Conversion
o It is possible for a strike to change its character from an economic to a ULP strike. In the case of
Consolidated v Marsman, initially, the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the Company
to grant it benefits. However, strike changed its character from the time the Company refused to
49


reinstate complainants because of their union activities. From an economic strike, it was converted to
a ULP strike.
o Ma’am Daway says: There are no situations in which a ULP strike will be converted into an economic
strike.

e. Non-‐conversion—Strike to Lockout
o “The strike… openly and publicly declared by the… union…cannot be converted into a pure and
simple lockout by the mere [expedient] of filing before the trial court a notice of offer to return to
work, during the pendency of the labor dispute.” (Rizal Cement v CIR, G.R. No. L-‐18442, November
30, 1962 *not in the syllabus but the Sukhothai case doesn’t say anything about non-‐conversion of
strike to lockout anyway so we had to look for alternative sources)
o In other words, even if the union filed a notice of offer to return to work during a strike and the
company refused the same, the strike isn’t immediately converted into a lockout just because of the
employer’s refusal.

7. Grounds
a. Allowable strikes
o As provided in Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5
1. Bargaining deadlocks
2. Unfair labor practices
• Violations of CBA not considered as ULP and shall not be strikeable, UNLESS it is a flagrant
and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions

o Non-‐strikeable grounds – can be found in numbers 1-‐3 under “b. Prohibited Strikes” below
(according to Ma’am’s lecture)

b. Prohibited Strikes
1. Those involving inter-‐union or intra-‐union disputes (263(b))
2. Violations of the CBA (Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5)
3. Wage distortion caused by RA 6727 (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC)
4. Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan (even if it were considered merely as an exercise of free
expression) (Biflex Phils v Filflex)
5. After assumption order of Sec of Labor in 263(g) (264(a))
6. After Certification order for compulsory arbitration by NLRC (264(a))
7. After Submission Agreement (signed by both Union and Employer) to Voluntary Arbitrator (264(a))
8. Pendency of cases involving the same grounds for strike (264(a))
9. When any of the mandatory requirements for strike aren’t present (Notice of Strike + Strike Vote +
Report to DOLE) (264(a))

i. Assumption of Jurisdiction (basically a bulleted version of 263(g))
• When made: When, in the Sec of Labor’s opinion, there exists a labor dispute involving an industry
indispensable to the national interest, (e.g. transportation)
50


o President of the Phils may determine industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to
the national interest.
• Sec of Labor may either:

o Assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it (President of the Phils may also
intervene at any time and assume jurisdiction over labor disputes to settle/terminate the
same)
o Certify the same to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration
• Effect:
o Automatically enjoins the intended or impending strike or lockout, as specified in the
assumption/certification order
o If strike has already taken place, all striking/locked out employees shall immediately
return to work and employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout
• Sec of Labor or NLRC may seek assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this
provision or with such orders he may issue
• In cases of hospitals, clinics, and similar medical institutions, strikes and lockouts shall, to every
extent possible be avoided
o Goal: to substantially minimize, if not prevent the adverse effects on the life and health of
the people
o In labor disputes affecting their continued operations, it shall be the duty of the union or
employer
o to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other
health personnel for the duration of the strike/lockout
o the movement and services of such personnel shall be unhampered and
unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the
life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases
o In such cases, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume, within
twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout,
jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration.
o Union and employer are strictly enjoined to comply with orders, prohibitions and/or
injunctions issued by the Sec of Labor or the NLRC, under pain of immediate disciplinary
action
o Disciplinary actions include: 1) dismissal or loss of employment status or
payment by the locking-‐out employer of backwages, damages and other
affirmative reliefs, or even 2) criminal prosecution against either or both of them.
• Assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the
parties even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. Such orders automatically result
in a return-‐to-‐work of all striking workers, whether or not a corresponding order has been issued by the
Secretary of Labor. (Union of Filipro v Nestle)

ii. Compulsory Arbitration, Def.
51


• When the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions, the proceeding is referred to
as compulsory arbitration. In labor cases, compulsory arbitration is the process of settlement of labor
disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is
binding on all the parties. (Union of Filipro v Nestle)

• When sitting in a compulsory arbitration certified to it by the Secretary of Labor, the NLRC is not sitting
as a judicial court but as an administrative body charged with the duty to implement the order of the
Secretary. (Union of Filipro v Nestle)
iii. Intra-‐union/inter-‐union dispute
• Inter-‐union dispute-‐ any conflict between and among legitimate labor unions involving
representation questions for purposes of collective bargaining or to any other conflict or dispute
between legitimate labor unions. (Book V, Rule 1, Sec. 1 (x))
• Intra-‐union dispute-‐ any conflict between and 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 union’s constitution and by-‐laws, or disputes arising from chartering or affiliation of
union (Book V, Rule 1, Sec. 1 (bb), Employees of Union Bayer v Bayer)
• The BLR divisions of the regional offices of the DOLE have jurisdiction over inter-‐union and intra-‐union
disputes. Unlike the NLRC, however, the BLR is not vested with the jurisdiction over claims for
damages. (Marino v Gamilla)
• Rule XI, Secs. 1 and 2 of DO 40-‐03 (these are listed verbatim) enumerates the ff as inter/intra-‐union
disputes:
(a) conduct OR NULLIFICATION of election of union and workers' association
officers/nullification of election of union and workers' association officers;
(b) audit/accounts examination of union or workers' association funds;
(c) deregistration of collective bargaining agreements;
(d) validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
(e) validity/invalidity of acceptance/non-‐acceptance for union membership;
(f) validity/invalidity of voluntary recognition;
(g) opposition to application for union OR CBA registration;
(h) violations of or disagreements over any provision of the constitution and by-‐laws of a
union or workers' association
(i) disagreements over chartering or registration of labor organizations or the registration of
collective bargaining agreements;
(j) violations of the rights and conditions of membership in a union or workers' association
membership;
(k) violations of the rights of legitimate labor organizations, except interpretation of collective
bargaining agreements;
(l) validity/invalidity of impeachment/expulsion/suspension or any disciplinary action
meted against any officer and member, including those arising from non-‐compliance with
the reportorial requirements under rule V;
(m) such other disputes or conflicts involving the rights to self-‐organization, union
membership and collective bargaining -‐
(1) between and among legitimate labor organizations; AND
(2) between and among members of a union or workers' association.

Other labor relations disputes, not otherwise covered by article 217 of the Labor Code, shall
include:
52


i. Any conflict between:

1. A labor union and the employer, or
2. A labor union and a group that is not a labor organization; or
3. A labor union and an individual who is not a member of such union;
ii. Cancellation of registration of unions and workers associations filed by individual/s other
than its members, or group that is not a labor organization; and
iii. A petition for interpleader involving labor relations. (Employees Union of Bayer v Bayer)

c. No Strike Clause
• Although a no strike clause in a CBA is valid, it is only applicable to economic strikes. Strikes conducted
by reason of ULP are still valid, and the no strike clause cannot be used to assail the legality of the ULP
strike(Panay Electric v NLRC, Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa v Ramos)
8. Striking Party
• For bargaining deadlocks: Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a strike
• For unfair labor practices: Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative
o In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate labor
organization in the establishment may declare a strike(Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6)
• Effect of non-‐compliance: strike will be declared illegal.

9. Procedural Requirements (See bulleted version of Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5-‐11 below)
a. Effort to Bargain
• Unless there is effort to bargain collectively in accordance with Title VII, strikes/lockouts cannot be
declared (264(a))

i. Employer’s counter-‐proposal
• The rule in Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 4—which says that in cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall be
accompanied by, among other things, counter-‐proposals of the company-‐-‐is qualified by the phrase “as far as
practicable”. If the notice of strike does not contain this, the strike isn’t automatically illegal, as in this case
where the company was responsible for not making it available to the union when such notice of strike as
filed (Club Filipino v Bautista)
b. Filing of Notice of Intention
Failure to file a notice of intention to strike is a prohibited activity (264(a))
•

c. Observance of Cooling-‐off Period
• During this time, all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement shall be
exerted . If dispute still unsettled after the required period elapses, strike/lockout may be declared.
(263(e))
d. Vote
• A decision to declare a strike:
1. Must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned
2. obtained by secret ballot
3. in meetings or referenda called for the purpose.
53


• Such 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
• Conduct of secret balloting may be supervised by NCMB, either at its own initiation or upon request by
the affected party

• The union shall furnish the Regional Board of NCMB:
1. the notice of meetings at least 24 hours before such meetings for strike/lockout vote; and
2. results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike, subject to the cooling-‐off period
(263(f), Rule XXII, Sec. 10)

• This requirement of the 7-‐day strike ban should be observed to give the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries
the approval of the majority of the union members. (Pilipino Telephone Corp v PILTEA)
• In case of ULP amounting to union busting, only the 15-‐day cooling-‐off period after the notice of strike
does not apply. The other mandatory requirements (strike vote + report of the results of the strike vote
to DOLE + 7-‐day strike ban) are still required.(Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA)
10. Test of Legality

a. Legal Strikes
i. Purpose and Means Test
• Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is lawful, the strike may still be declared
invalid where the means employed are illegal…In cases not falling within the prohibition against
strikes, the legality of a strike depends upon the purpose, and second, upon the means employed.
o Purpose: If the purpose intended to be accomplished is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if
the strikers commit violence or injure persons or damage property, the strike, although
not prohibited by injunction, may be declared illegal.
o Means: A strike held with coercion, force, intimidation, violence, injuries, sabotage and
unnecessary and obscene language cannot be justified, lest abuses and terrorism be
encouraged and the purpose of the law providing for peaceful settlement of labor disputes
subverted. (Chuayuco Steel v Buklod ng Manggagawa)
ii. Guidelines and Balancing of Interests
• In determining the validity of a strike, it is imperative that utmost consideration should be given to
the particular circumstances of each case, with a view to having the most comprehensive
understanding of the motivations of the parties, in the light of human needs on the part of labor, and
in the perspective of the orderly and economical conduct of business and industry, on the part of
management (Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell)
• The right to strike, while constitutionally recognized, is not without legal restrictions. The Labor
Code regulates the exercise of said right by balancing the interests of labor and management. Art 263
(c) -‐ (f) mandate the procedural steps to be followed before a strike is to be staged: filing of notice of
strike, taking of strike vote, and reporting strike vote to DOLE. The steps are mandatory and non-‐
compliance makes the strike illegal. (Stamford Mark v Julian)
iii. Defenses—Good faith
• A strike would be considered valid even though it may have been called to offset what the strikers
believed in good faith to be ULP. Such presumption of legality prevails even if the allegations of ULP
were found to be untrue. (Master Iron v NLRC)
54


• General rule is that a strike based on a “non-‐strikeable” ground is an illegal strike. Corollarily, a strike
grounded on ULP is illegal if no such acts actually exist.
o Exception: even if no ULP acts are committed by the employer, if the employees believe in
good faith that ULP acts exist so as to constitute a valid ground to strike, then the strike
held pursuant to such belief may be legal. Circumstances must warrant such belief
(National Union of Workers v NLRC)
b. Illegal Strikes
i. Basis of illegality
• In accordance with Art. 264, even an the otherwise legal strike may be rendered illegal if the means
employed were illegal. Even if the acts were committed on non-‐consecutive days, the acts were still
pervasive. Art. 264 doesn’t require that violence must be continuous or that they should exist for the
entire duration of the strike. (A Soriano Aviation v Employees Association)
ii. Illegal Acts/Prohibited Activities
• As listed in 264 (a), 1st and 2nd pars it is illegal:
o When a strike is conducted

1. Without first having bargaining collectively in accordance with Title VII
2. Without having filed the notice of strike
3. Without filing the necessary strike vote and reporting the same to the ministry
4. After assumption of jurisdiction by the president or the secretary. Defiance of the
Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction and return to work order makes the strike a
prohibited activity under Art. 264. (Bagong Pagkakaisa v DOLE)
5. After certification to compulsory arbitration by NLRC
6. After submission of the dispute to voluntary arbitration
• To obstruct, impede, or interfere with peaceful picketing (See Prohibited Activities under Picketing
below) (264(b))
• Employment of Strike Breakers (See heading under the same name below)
• Escorting done by peace officers (See Role of Peace Officers During Strikes and Picketing below)
• A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has complied with the strict
requirements when the same is held contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause or
conclusive arbitration clause. (C Alcantara & Sons v CA)
iii. Effect of Union Non-‐registration
• Art. 263 and Rule XXII, Sec. 6 provide that only the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent (or
any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members, as the case may be *See “8. Striking Party”
above) may declare a strike.

o If the union had not yet acquired legal personality, it could not legally represent the
eventual union and its members. Consequently, if the union makes a notice of strike,
conducts a strike vote and reports the same to DOLE even before it acquired legal
personality as a legitimate labor organization, the aforementioned acts would be
ineffective. Considering that the requisites are deemed ineffective, the strike that the union
will be conducting will be declared illegal for failure to comply with the mandatory
requisites.(Magdala Multipurpose v Kilusang Manggagawa)
iv. Effect of Illegality

Liabilities of Participating members/officers of the union
55


• Art. 264, in providing the consequences of an illegal strike, makes a distinction between union
officers and members who participated therein:
o Union Officers-‐ knowingly participating in an illegal strike is a valid ground for
termination of employment. Participating union officers have to be identified (Yolito
Fabriquelan v Monterey)

o Union Members-‐ mere participation in an illegal strike isn’t sufficient ground for
termination. There must also be illegal acts committed by the union member (i.e. there
must be substantial evidence of the illegal acts during the strike + striker who participated
in the illegal acts must be identified) (Sukhothai Cuisine v CA, Phimco v Phimco, Danilo
Escario v NLRC)

• Art. 264 authorizes the award of full backwages only when the termination of employment is a
consequence of an unlawful lockout and not as a result of an illegal strike (Escario v NLRC)

v. Effect of Assumption/Certification Order
• As the term “assume jurisdiction” connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor Secretary full
authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or
lockout; it includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising from or related to the
dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction. (Bagong Pagkakaisa
ng Manggagawa ng Triumph v Secretary)

• The assumption of jurisdiction in Art. 263(g)..[is]… viewed as an exercise of the police power of the
State with the aim of promoting the common good… and it is incumbent upon the Secretary to bring
about soonest, a fair and just solution to the differences between the employer and the employees, so
that the damage such labor dispute might cause upon the national interest may be minimized as
much as possible. (YSS Employees v YSS Laboratories)

• In order to achieve this, the assumption or certification order shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout, as specified in the assumption/certification
order.
o If strike has already taken place, all striking/locked out employees shall immediately
return to work and employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout
(263(g), Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph v Secretary)
Mass Leave (considered as illegal strike in the Solidbank case)
• In the case of Solidbank Corp v EU Gamier, despite the Union’s argument that it held a mass action
not to exert any undue pressure on the employer, but to express dissatisfaction over the decision of
the Labor Secretary subsequent to his assumption of jurisdiction, the Court still held that the mass
action is a strike.
o Shrouded as demonstrations, they were in reality temporary stoppages of work
perpetrated through the concerted action of the employees who deliberately failed to
report for work on the convenient excuse that they will hold a rally at the BLR and DOLE
offices. Because they held such mass action after the assumption order, the strike was held
to be illegal.
11. In case of illegal strike, illegal lockout/ in pari delicto doctrine-‐ Status quo ante
• In case of illegal strike and illegal lockout at the same time, the in pari delicto doctrine is applicable. Such
situation warrants the restoration of the status quo ante and bringing the parties back to the respective
positions before the illegal strike and illegal lockout. (Automotive Engine Rebuilders v Progresibong Unyon)
56


12. Employment of Strike Breakers
• No employer shall use or employ any strike-‐breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-‐breaker.
(264(c))
• "Strike-‐breaker" -‐ any person who
o obstructs, impedes, or interferes with
o by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation.
o any peaceful picketing:
• affecting wages, hours or conditions of work
• in the exercise of the right of self-‐organization or collective bargaining (212(r))

13. Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes
• On or before the 30th day of the strike, DOLE shall conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved
offer of the employer
o When a majority of the members vote to accept the improved offer, the striking workers shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall readmit them upon the signing of the agreement
(265, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 12)

C. Slowdown as Concerted Activity
• “Slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable, because while the employees
"continue to work and remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to them," they at the same
time "select what part of their allotted tasks they care to perform of their own volition or refuse openly
or secretly, to the employer's damage, to do other work" in other words, they "work on their own
terms.” (Ilaw at Bukod v NLRC)

D. Picketing
1. Definition
• Picketing is the marching to and fro at the employer’s premises, usually accompanied by the display of
placards and other signs (IBM v NLRC)

2. Nature and Purpose of Picket Line
• “Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by
the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute. As applied to a
labor dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more persons to observe and attempt to observe. The
purpose of pickets is said to be a means of peaceable persuasion” (Sta Rosa Coca-‐Cola Union v. CCBP)
• “The heated altercations and occasional blows exchanged on the picket line do not affect or diminish the right
to strike…some disorder is unfortunately quite usual in any extensive or long drawn out strike. Fist-‐fighting
between union and non-‐union employees in the midst of a strike is no bar to reinstatement" (Insular Life v
Insular)

3. Picketing and Libel Laws
57


• It is a fact of industrial life that in the continuing confrontation between labor and management, it is far from
likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. As first announced by the Court
through Justice Malcolm in US vs. Bustos, the judiciary, in deciding suits for libel, must ascertain whether or
not the alleged offending words may be embraced by the guarantees of free speech and free press. (Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank v Philnabank Employees)

4. Curtailment
• The wholesale condemnation of peaceful picketing is bereft of support in law. Peaceful picketing is embraced
in freedom of expression… and is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of the Constitution. Such cannot be
prohibited as long as it doesn’t involve acts of illegality. (Nagkahiusang Manggagawa v Libron)

5. Regulation/Restrictions, Innocent Third Party Rule and Liabilities
• The Union’s right to strike, although guaranteed by the Constitution, may be regulated if the rights of third
parties or “innocent bystanders” are affected. (Liwayway Publishing Co v Permanent Concrete Workers
Union)

6. Prohibited Activities – Peaceful Picketing
• Limitations for picketers: No person engaged in picketing shall commit
o any act of violence, coercion or intimidation , or
o obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or
o obstruct public thoroughfares.
• Prohibited acts against picketers:

o Obstructing, impeding or interfering with, by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any
peaceful picketing by workers:
 during any labor controversy or
 in the exercise of the right to self-‐organization or collective bargaining
o Aiding or abetting such obstruction or interference.
o No employer shall use or employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any person be employed
for such purpose. (Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13, 264(b))

E. Role of Peace Officers During Strikes and Picketing
1. Escorting
• Peace officers not allowed

o To bring in, introduce or escort in any manner,
o any individual who:
 seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or
 work in place of the strikers.
• Peace officers shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein, but
they cannot be prevented from taking any measure necessary to
o maintain peace and order,
o protect life and property, and/or
o enforce the law and legal order. (264(d))

58


2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators
• Generally, no union members or union organizers may be arrested or detained for union activities without
previous consultations with the Secretary of Labor
o Exceptions: They can be arrested on ground of
 national security and public peace
 commission of a crime (266)

Bulleted Version: Book V, Rule XXII (Conciliation, Strikes and Lockouts)
1. Conciliation of Labor Management disputes
• NCMB may provide conciliation-‐mediation services to labor disputes other than notices of strikes or
lockouts
o Upon request of either or both parties, or
o Upon its own initiative
• Conciliation cases not subjects of notices of strike or lockout shall be docketed as preventive
mediation cases

2. Privileged Communication
• Include information and statements given in confidence at conciliation proceedings
• Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in court or body regarding any matter taken up at
conciliation proceedings

3. Issuance of Subpoena
• NCMB has the power to require appearance at conciliation meetings thru a subpoena

4. Compromise Agreements
• Final and binding upon the parties if
o Voluntarily agreed upon by the parties
o With the assistance of NCMB and its regional branches
• NCMB cannot assume jurisdiction over issues involved in compromise agreements, unless
o Non-‐compliance
o Prima facie evidence that settlement was obtained thru fraud, misrepresentation, or
coercion
• Labor Arbiter has power to issue writ of execution in order to require courts or sheriff of NLRC to
enforce agreement

5. Grounds for Strike or Lockout
• Allowable grounds: bargaining deadlocks and ULP. Violations of CBA not considered ULP and not
strikeable, except
o Flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions
• When strike not allowed:
o Intra-‐union/inter-‐union disputes
o Without filing notice of strike/lockout
o Without obtaining strike/lockout vote
o Without reporting results of the vote to NCMB
o After assumption of jurisdiction by Secretary of Labor
o Certification of dispute to compulsory arbitration
o Submission to voluntary arbitration
o Pendency of cases involving the same grounds for strike or lockout

6. Who may declare strike or lockout
• For bargaining deadlocks: Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a
strike
• For unfair labor practices: Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative
59


o In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate
labor organization in the establishment may declare a strike(Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6)

7. Notice of Strike or Lockout
• Notice must be filed at the prescribed period with the Regional Branch of the NCMB, a copy of which
having been served on the other party concerned.
• Prescribed periods:
o Bargaining Deadlocks: 30 days before intended date
o ULP: 15 days before intended date
 ULP involving the dismissal of union officers which may constitute union-‐busting,
where existence of union threatened: cooling-‐off period of 15 days DOES NOT
APPLY, but the mandatory requirements for strike vote + submission of the results
to the DOLE shall still apply

8. Contents of Notice
1) Names and addresses of employer and union involved
2) Nature of Industry to which the employer belongs
3) Number of union members and of the workers in the bargaining unit
4) Other relevant data as may facilitate the settlement of the dispute, such as a brief statement or
enumeration of all pending labor disputes involving the same parties.
5) Additional requirement in case of bargaining deadlocks:
o As far as practicable, it shall further state the (1) unresolved issues in the bargaining
negotiations and be accompanied by the written proposals of the union, (2) the counter-‐
proposals of the employer and (3) the proof of a request for conference to settle the differences.
6) Additional requirement in case of ULP:
o As far as practicable, it shall state the acts complained of and the efforts taken to resolve the
dispute amicably.
**Effect of non-‐conformance with the requirements for notice: The Regional Branch of the Board shall
inform the concerned party of such fact.

9. Action of Regional Branch of NCMB on the Notice:
• Must exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to settle the dispute
amicably and also encourage the parties to submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
• Upon agreement of the parties, notice may:
o be treated as a preventive mediation case.
o be referred to alternative modes of dispute resolution, including voluntary arbitration
• During the proceedings, the parties shall:
o not do any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the dispute
o bargain collectively in good faith and
o participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings called by the NCMB

10. Rules on Strike or lockout vote:
• Strike vote requisites:
o approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned
o obtained by secret ballot
o in meetings or referenda called for the purpose.
• Lockout vote requisites:
o approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the employer, corporation or association
or the partners in a partnership
o obtained by a secret ballot
o in a meeting called for the purpose.
• Conduct of secret balloting may be supervised by NCMB, either at its own initiation or upon request
by the affected party
• The union or the employer shall furnish the Regional Board of NCMB:
o the notice of meetings at least 24 hours before such meetings for strike/lockout vote; and
60


o results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the
cooling-‐off period

11. Declaration of Strike or Lockout
• Declaration of strike or lockout may be made if the dispute remains unsettled after the required
period for cooling-‐off + 7-‐day period after submitting the results of the strike/lockout vote.
• Meanwhile, the Regional Branch of NCMB shall continue mediating and conciliating.

12. Improved Offer Balloting
IN CASE OF A STRIKE
• On or before the 30th day of the strike
• Regional Branch of NCMB shall conduct a referendum
o At its own initiative, or
o Upon the request of any affected party
• By secret ballot
• on the improved offer of the employer
o When a majority of the members vote to accept the improved offer, the striking workers
shall immediately return to work and the employer shall readmit them upon the signing of
the agreement

IN CASE OF A LOCKOUT
• On or before the 30th day of the strike
• Regional Branch of NCMB shall conduct a referendum
o At its own initiative, or
o Upon the request of any affected party
• By secret ballot
• On the reduced offer of the union
o When majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the controlling
interest in the case of partnership vote to accept the reduced offer, the workers shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the
signing of the agreement.

13. Peaceful Picketing:
• Workers shall have the right to peaceful picketing.
• Limitations for picketers-‐-‐No person engaged in picketing shall commit:
o any act of violence, coercion or intimidation , or
o obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful
purposes, or
o obstruct public thoroughfares.
• Prohibited acts against picketers:
o Obstructing, impeding or interfering with, by force, violence, coercion, threats or
intimidation, any peaceful picketing by workers:
o during any labor controversy or
o in the exercise of the right to self-‐organization or collective bargaining
o Aiding or abetting such obstruction or interference.
o No employer shall use or employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any person be
employed for such purpose

14. Injunctions
• Court or entity cannot enjoin picketing, strikes, or lockouts, except in cases under Art. 218 and 263
o 218 (e): NLRC has power to enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or
all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require performance of a particular act in any labor
dispute, which, if not restrained or performed therewith, may cause grave or irreparable
damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party.
o 263(g): Assumption of jurisdiction
• NLRC has power to issue TROs in such cases, but only after due notice + hearing
61


In case of an application for a writ of injunction, reception may be delegated by NLRC to a Labor
•
Arbiter who shall submit recommendations to the NLRC for consideration and resolution
• Ex parte restraining orders issued by NLRC, Chairman or vice chairman valid for a period not
exceeding 20 days

15. Assumption by Secretary of Labor and Employment
• When there exists a labor dispute involving an industry indispensable to the national interest,
• Sec of Labor may:
o Assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it
o Certify the same to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration
• Requisite for assumption of jurisdiction (only one needed)
o Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction
over the labor dispute; OR
o After a conference called by the Office of the Secretary on the propriety of its issuance, motu
proprio or upon a request or petition by either parties to the labor dispute.
• Effect:
o Automatically enjoins the intended or impending strike or lockout
o If strike has already taken place, all striking/locked out employees shall immediately return
to work and employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under
the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout
• Notwithstanding, parties may agree at any time to submit the dispute:
o to the Secretary or his representative as voluntary arbitrator
o to a duly accredited voluntary arbitrator
o to a panel of voluntary arbitrators

16. Requirement for Minimum Operational Service
• In labor disputes adversely affecting continued operation of hospitals, clinics, and similar medical
institutions,
• It shall be the duty of the union or employer:
o to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health
personnel for the duration of the strike/lockout
o the movement and services of such personnel shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are
necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients,
most especially emergency cases

17. Decision of the Assumed Labor Dispute; Finality
• NLRC, voluntary arbitrator, or panel of voluntary arbitrators decisions:
o When rendered: within 30 calendar days from submission of case for resolution
o When final and executory: 10 calendar days upon receipt of the decision by the parties

18. Prohibitions On Law Enforcement Agencies Or Public Officials/Employees, Armed Persons, Private Security
Guards And Similar Personnel In The Private Security Agency. Exception.
• Applies to:
o public official or employee including officers and personnel of the armed forces of the
Philippines or the Philippine National Police, or
o armed person, private security guards and similar personnel in the private security agency
• Prohibited Activities of such persons
o bring in, introduce or escort in 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.
• General Rule: They shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts
occur therein.
• But any public officer, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the NLRC may seek the assistance
of law enforcement agencies to:
o maintain peace and order
o protect life and property, and/or
62


o enforce the law and legal order

o pursuant to the provisions of the joint DOLE-‐DILG-‐PEZA Guidelines in the conduct of PNP
Personnel, Economic Zone Police and security guards, company security guards and similar
personnel during labor disputes.

19. Criminal Prosecution
• Regular courts have jurisdiction over any criminal action under Article 272 of the Labor Code, as
amended, subject to the required clearance from the DOLE on cases arising out of or related to a
labor dispute pursuant to the DOJ

IX. Union Concerted Activities

A. Basis of Right to Engage in Concerted Activities Facts: Union held a strike. Company filed petition for
injunction, but the union was not furnished a copy.
1. Constitution NLRC issued a TRO to enjoin the strike, and union was
Art. XIII, Sec. 3 again not furnished a copy of the decision. Union filed
for petition for injunction to enjoin the company from
ARTICLE XIII. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS – asking the aid of police/military, while the company
LABOR filed for immediate issuance of preliminary injunction
(alleging that the union members were still striking.)
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to
NLRC issued the preliminary injunction in favor of the
labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
company.
and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all. Held: The right to strike is enshrined in the
constitution. Strike is considered the most effective
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-‐ weapon of labor in protecting the rights of employees
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, to improve the terms and conditions of their
and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to employment, and can correct abuses against labor. It
strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to remains as the great equalizer. Under the Constitution,
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a the State is mandated “to guarantee the rights of all
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and workers to self organization, collective bargaining and
decision-‐making processes affecting their rights and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
benefits as may be provided by law. including the right to strike in accordance with law.”
Union was denied the right to attend the hearing
The State shall promote the principle of shared
because they did not receive any copy of the
responsibility between workers and employers and
company’s petition for injunction. NLRC’s decision is
the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
annulled.
disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
2. Statutory
peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers Art. 211-‐A (a) (b) (c). Declaration of Policy—A. It is
and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just the policy of the State:
share in the fruits of production and the right of
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free
enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and
collective bargaining and negotiations, including
to expansion and growth.
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as
modes of settling labor or industrial disputes;
Bisig ng Manggagawa v NLRC
63


(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument Section 4. Compromise Agreements. -‐ Any
for the enhancement of democracy and the promotion compromise settlement, including those involving
of social justice and development; labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties with the assistance of the Board and its
(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a regional branches shall be final and binding upon the
strong and united labor movement; parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or
any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues
involved therein except in case of non-‐compliance
Art. 263 (a) (b). Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the
settlement was obtained through fraud,
(a) It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade misrepresentation, or coercion. Upon motion of any
unionism and free collective bargaining. interested party, the Labor Arbiter in the region
where the agreement was reached may issue a
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in writ of execution requiring a sheriff of the
concerted activities for purposes of collective Commission or the courts to enforce the terms of the
bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. agreement.
The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike
and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent Section 5. Grounds for strike or lockout. -‐ A strike or
with the national interest, shall continue to be lockout may be declared in cases of bargaining
recognized and respected. However, no labor union deadlocks and unfair labor practices. Violations of
may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on collective bargaining agreements, except flagrant
grounds involving inter-‐union and intra-‐union and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic
disputes. provisions, shall not be considered unfair labor
practice and shall not be strikeable. No strike or
lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter
union and intra-‐union disputes OR without first
Book V, Rule XXII having filed a notice of strike or lockout or without the
necessary strike or lockout vote having been obtained
Book V. (Labor Relations), Rule XXII (Conciliation, and reported to the Board. Neither will a strike be
Strikes, and Lockouts). declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the
Secretary or after certification or submission of the
Section 1. Conciliation of labor-‐management disputes. -‐
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or
The board may, upon request of either of both parties
during the pendency of cases involving the same
or upon its own initiative, provide conciliation-‐
grounds for the strike or lockout. (Amended by DO 40-‐
mediation services to labor disputes other than
A-‐03 to include “or”)
notices of strikes or lockouts. Conciliation cases
which are not subjects of notices of strike or lockout Section 6. Who may declare a strike or lockout. -‐ Any
shall be docketed as preventive mediation cases. certified or duly recognized bargaining representative
may declare a strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks
Section 2. Privileged communication. -‐ Information
and unfair labor practices. The employer may declare
and statements given in confidence at conciliation
a lockout in the same cases. In the absence of a
proceedings shall be treated as privileged
certified or duly recognized bargaining
communications. Conciliators and similar officials
representative, any legitimate labor organization in
shall not testify in any court or body regarding
the establishment may declare a strike but only on
any matter taken up at conciliation proceedings
grounds of unfair labor practices.
conducted by them.

Section 3. Issuance of subpoena. -‐ The Board shall Section 7. Notice of strike or lockout. -‐ In bargaining
have the power to require the appearance of any deadlocks, a notice of strike or lockout shall be filed
parties at conciliation meetings. with the regional branch of the Board at least thirty
(30) days before the intended date thereof, a copy of
64


said notice having been served on the other party bargain collectively in good faith and to participate
concerned. In cases of unfair labor practice, the fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings called
period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days. by the regional branch of the Board.
However, in case of unfair labor practice involving
the dismissal from employment of any union officer A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be
duly elected in accordance with the union referred to alternative modes of dispute resolution,
constitution and by-‐laws which may constitute including voluntary arbitration.
union-‐busting where the existence of the union is
Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. -‐ A decision to
threatened, the fifteen-‐day cooling-‐off period shall not
declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the
apply and the union may take action immediately after
total union membership in the bargaining unit
the strike vote is conducted and the results thereof
concerned obtained by secret ballot in meetings or
submitted to the appropriate regional branch of the
referenda called for the purpose. A decision to declare
Board.
a lockout must be approved by a majority of the Board
Section 8. Contents of notice. -‐ The notice shall state, of Directors of the employer, corporation or
among others, the names and addresses of the association or the partners in a partnership obtained
employer and the union involved, the nature of the by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose.
industry to which the employer belongs, the number
The regional branch of the Board may, at its own
of union members and of the workers in the
initiative or upon request of any affected party,
bargaining unit, and such other relevant data as may
supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every
facilitate the settlement of the dispute, such as a brief
case, the union or the employer shall furnish the
statement or enumeration of all pending labor
regional branch of the Board and the notice of
disputes involving the same parties.
meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at
In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, least twenty-‐four (24) hours before such meetings as
as far as practicable, further state the unresolved well as the results of the voting at least seven (7) days
issues in the bargaining negotiations and be before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the
accompanied by the written proposals of the union, cooling-‐off period provided in this Rule
the counter-‐proposals of the employer and the proof
Section 11. Declaration of strike or lockout. -‐ Should the
of a request for conference to settle the differences. In
dispute remain unsettled after the lapse of the
cases of unfair labor practices, the notice shall, as far
requisite number of days from the filing of the notice
as practicable, state the acts complained of and the
of strike or lockout and of the results of the election
efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
required in the preceding section, the labor union may
In case a notice does not conform with the strike or the employer may lock out its workers. The
requirements of this and the foregoing section/s, the regional branch of the Board shall continue mediating
regional branch of the Board shall inform the and conciliating.
concerned party of such fact.
Section 12. Improved offer balloting. -‐ In case of a
Section 9. Action on Notice. -‐ Upon receipt of the strike, the regional branch of the Board shall, at its
notice, the regional branch of the Board shall exert own initiative or upon the request of any affected
all efforts at mediation and conciliation to enable the party, conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the
parties to settle the dispute amicably. The regional improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th
branch of the Board may, upon agreement of the day of strike. When at least a majority of the union
parties, treat a notice as a preventive mediation case. members vote to accept the improved offer, the
It shall also encourage the parties to submit the striking workers shall immediately return to work and
dispute to voluntary arbitration. the employer shall thereupon re-‐admit them upon the
signing of the agreement.
During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any
act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement In case of a lockout, the regional branch of the Board
of the dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to shall also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on
65


the reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th Section 15. Assumption by the Secretary of Labor and
day of the lockout. When at least a majority of the Employment. – When a labor dispute causes or is likely
board of directors or trustees or the partners holding to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
the controlling interest in the case of partnership vote indispensable to the national interest, the secretary of
to accept the reduced offer, the workers shall labor and employment may assume jurisdiction over
immediately return to work and the employer shall the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory
agreement. arbitration, provided, that any of the following
conditions is present:
Section 13. Peaceful picketing. -‐ Workers shall have the
right to peaceful picketing. No person engaged in 1. Both parties have requested the Secretary of Labor
picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor
or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or dispute; or
egress from the employer's premises for lawful
purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares. 2. After a conference called by the office of the
secretary of labor and employment on the propriety of
No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere with, by its issuance, motu proprio or upon a request or
force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation, any petition by either parties to the labor dispute.
peaceful picketing by workers during any labor
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-‐ Such assumption shall have the effect of automatically
organization or collective bargaining or shall aid or enjoining an impending strike or lockout. If a
abet such obstruction or interference. No employer strike/lockout has already taken place at the time of
shall use or employ any person to commit such acts assumption, all striking or locked out employees and
nor shall any person be employed for such purpose. other employees subject of the notice of strike shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall
Section 14. Injunctions. -‐ No court or entity shall enjoin immediately resume operations and readmit all
any picketing, strike or lockout, except as provided in employees under the same terms and conditions
Articles 218 and 263 of the Labor Code. prevailing before the strike or lockout.

The Commission shall have the power to issue
Notwithstanding the foregoing, parties to the case may
temporary restraining orders in such cases but only
agree at any time to submit the dispute to the
after due notice and hearing and in accordance with its
Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized
rules. The reception of evidence for the application of
representative as voluntary arbitrator or to a duly
a writ of injunction may be delegated by the
accredited voluntary arbitrator or to a panel of
Commission to any Labor Arbiter who shall submit his
voluntary arbitrators.
recommendations to the Commission for its

consideration and resolution.
Section 16. Requirement for Minimum Operational
Any ex parte restraining order issued by the Service. – In labor disputes adversely affecting the
Commission, or its chairman or Vice-‐Chairman where continued operation of hospitals, clinics or medical
the Commission is not in session and as prescribed by institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or
its rules, shall be valid for a period not exceeding locking-‐out employer to provide and maintain an
twenty (20) days. effective skeletal workforce of medical and other
health personnel whose movement and services shall
*Section 15. Criminal prosecution. -‐ The regular courts be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to
shall have jurisdiction over any criminal action ensure the prosper and adequate protection of the life
under Article 272 of the Labor Code. and health of its patients, most especially emergency
cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout.
*(DO 40-‐G-‐03. S 2010 has amended Book V, Rule XXII
and added new provisions. Sections 15-‐19 now read): Section 17. Decision of the Assumed Labor Dispute;
Finality. – The decision of the Secretary of Labor and
66


Employment, the NLRC or voluntary arbitrator or slowdown is illegal
panel of voluntary arbitrators shall be rendered within
Held: Refusal of employees to adhere to the usual
thirty (30) calendar days from submission of the case
work schedule (accdg to SMC, a slowdown) is illegal. It
for resolution and shall be final and executory ten (10)
is prohibited by the law and also by their own CBA.
calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties.
Regardless of whether it is a slowdown or not, it is still
Section 18. Prohibitions on law enforcement agencies or prohibited by their CBA. The legality of concerted
public officials/employees, armed persons, private activities usually depends on the legality of the
security guards and similar personnel in the private purpose. It can be restricted by law or contract. In this
security agency. Exception. – No public official or case, the law is Sec. 3 of RA6727, which prescribes
employee, including officers and personnel of the specific procedure for the correction of wage
armed forces of the Philippines or the Philippine distortion and implicitly excluded strikes, lockouts or
National Police, or armed person, private security other concerted activities as means of settling the
guards and similar personnel in the private security issue.
agency shall bring in, introduce or escort in any
manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers
3. Limitations
in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or
BLT Bus Co v NLRC
work in place of the strikers.
Facts: A dispute arose between BLTB Co. and its union;
The police force shall keep out of the picket lines the union eventually went on strike. The Secretary
unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur assumed jurisdiction of the case and certified it to the
therein. NLRC for arbitration. Despite this, the strike
continued. A return-‐to-‐work order was issued by the
But any public officer, the Secretary of Labor and
NLRC, but the 190 members/respondents here did not
Employment or the NLRC may seek the assistance of
return to work within the period given. However, the
law enforcement agencies to maintain peace and
NLRC still directed BLTB to reinstate these members.
order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the
law and legal order pursuant to the provisions of the
joint DOLE-‐DILG-‐PEZA Guidelines in the conduct of
Held: While “a strike that is undertaken despite the
PNP Personnel, Economic Zone Police and security
issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or
guards, company security guards and similar
certification order becomes a prohibited activity and
personnel during labor disputes.
thus illegal”, the NLRC did not declare a wholesale
Section 19. Criminal prosecution. -‐ The regular courts forfeiture of employment to all who participated in the
shall have jurisdiction over any criminal action under strike in this case, because there was inadequate
Article 272 of the Labor Code, as amended, but subject service of the certification order on the union as of the
to the required clearance from the DOLE on cases date the strike was declared. Any violation of the legal
arising out of or related to a labor dispute pursuant to requirements and strictures, such as a defiance of a
the Ministry of Justice (now the Department of Justice) return-‐to-‐work order in industries affected with
Circular No. 15, Series of 1982 and Circular No. 9 public interest, will render the strike illegal, to the
Series of 1986. (As amended by DO 40-‐G-‐03, S. 2010) detriment of the very workers it is supposed to
protect.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC
B. Strike
Facts: Due to the passage of a new law, the employees
alleged that a wage distortion had arisen and should 1. Definition
be acted upon by SMC. Since they allege that the Art. 212 (o). Definitions –
company didn’t act on their demand, they stopped
working overtime (their regular work schedule (o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by
incorporated overtime every shift). SMC filed a the concerted action of employees as a result of an
complaint against the union, arguing that the industrial or labor dispute.
67


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

Held: Since the strike was clearly illegal, officers who
(uu) “Strike” refers to any temporary stoppage of participate in illegal strikes may be considered fired.
work by the concerted action of employees as a result The strike, as the most preeminent economic weapon
of a labor or industrial dispute. of the workers to force management to agree to an
equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and
G&S Transport Corp. v Tito S. Infante capital, exerts some disquieting effects not only on the
relationship between labor and management, but also
Facts: Tito Infante et al were drivers of G&S Transport.
on the general peace and progress of society and
G&S claimed to have received a letter memorandum
economic well-‐being of the State. This weapon is so
from the Union demanding the dismissal of 2
critical that the law imposes the supreme penalty of
employees on the ground that they were guilty of
dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly
committing acts of disloyalty, etc. by filing a petition
participate in an illegal strike and union members who
calling for a local election. These 2 employees were
commit unlawful acts during a strike. The
dismissed. The drivers learned of this incident and
responsibility of the union officers, as main players in
stopped driving their taxicabs in sympathy for their
an illegal strike, is greater than that of the members as
dismissed colleagues. Although G&S ordered the
the union officers have the duty to guide their
drivers to return to work, some drivers refused to do
members to respect the law. The grave penalty of
so, prompting G&S to file an action against the latter
dismissal imposed on the guilty parties is a natural
for illegal strike. The drivers then filed a case for illegal
consequence, considering the interest of public
dismissal against G&S.
welfare.

Held: Strike is “any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothmen Knitting
industrial or labor dispute.” A valid strike presupposes Corp—Solidarity of Unions v CA
the existence of a labor dispute. In this case, there was
no labor dispute. Thus, they committed an illegal
strike in the form of a sit-‐down strike. Unlike union Facts: The Company issued Memoranda informing
officers, mere participation of members in an illegal employees in its Dyeing and Finishing Division of a
strike isn’t a sufficient ground for termination of temporary shutdown of operations and advising them
services. To warrant dismissal, the members must to go on vacation leave. A service truck was stopped by
have committed illegal acts, and since there was no a group of employees led by the union president. The
proof of the respondents’ commission of illegal acts, union members began picketing outside the CKC
they should not be dismissed. compound, demanding 13th month pay and other
benefits.

Held: The strike was illegal, due to non-‐compliance
Pilipino Telephone Corporation v PILTEA
with the ff. mandatory requirements for a valid strike

provided in Art. 263, Labor Code:
Facts: The Union filed two notices of strike. After the i. Notice of strike must be filed
filing of the first, the Secretary of Labor issued an ii. Strike-‐vote must be taken
assumption order and directed both parties not to do iii. Results of strike-‐vote must be reported to the
anything that would exacerbate the situation. Despite DOLE.
the order, the Union filed a second notice and went on Thus, BMC-‐SUPER officers who knowingly
strike the same day. The LA declared the strike illegal participated in such illegal strike are deemed
for non-‐compliance with procedural requirements and terminated from employment. In this case, there was
defiance of the Secretary’s order. The grounds for both no valid factual ground, either based on Collective
notices were essentially the same and there were Bargaining Deadlock and/or ULP, No notice of strike
illegal acts committed by both union officers and was filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation
members during the strike. All participating officers Board of the DOLE, there was no strike-‐vote taken by
could be considered to have lost employment. the majority members of the union, there was no
68


strike-‐vote report submitted to the DOLE at least 7 management. It is a weapon that can either breathe
days before the intended date of the strike, there was life to or destroy the union and its members in their
non-‐observance of cooling-‐off period prescribed by struggle with management for a more equitable due of
law, and there was non-‐observance of 7-‐day visiting their labors. The decision to wield the weapon of
period after submission of strike vote. strike must, therefore, rest on a rational basis, free
from emotionalism, unswayed by the tempers and
2. Nature and Purpose tantrums of a few hotheads, and firmly focused on the
BLT Bus Co v NLRC legitimate interest of the union which should not,
however, be antithetical to the public welfare. Thus,
Facts: A dispute arose between BLTB Co. and its union; our laws require the decision to strike to be the
the union eventually went on strike. The Secretary consensus of the majority for while the majority is not
assumed jurisdiction of the case and certified it to the infallible, still, it is the best hedge against haste and
NLRC for arbitration. Despite this, the strike error. In addition, a majority vote assures the union it
continued. A return-‐to-‐work order was issued by the will go to war against management with the strength
NLRC, but the 190 members/respondents here did not derived from unity and hence, with better chance to
return to work within the period given. However, the succeed.
NLRC still directed BLTB to reinstate these members.
4. Scope of the term “strike”
Held: The right to strike is one of the rights recognized
Sta. Rosa Coca-‐Cola Plant Employees Union v CCBP
and guaranteed by the Constitution as an instrument
of labor for its protection against exploitation by Facts: Company alleged that Union conducted an
management. By virtue of this right, the workers are illegal strike. Union claimed that they did not strike,
able to press their demands for better terms of but only exercised their right to picket.
employment with more energy and persuasiveness, Held: It was a strike. Art. 212(o) of the LC defines
poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the strike as a temporary stoppage of work by the
employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a concerted action of employees as a result of an
powerful weapon of the working class. But precisely industrial or labor dispute. It can mean work
stoppages, slowdowns, mass leaves, attempts to
because of this, it must be handled carefully, like a
damage equipment, and other similar activities.
sensitive explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own (Picketing involves merely marching to and fro at the
hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the most premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the
thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the display of placards making known the facts involved in
only way allowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case a labor dispute.)
conformably to reasonable regulation.
5. Effect on Work Relationship
3. Rationale for Regulation by Law Art. 212 (o), supra p. 67
Lapanday Workers Union v NLRC

Chuayuco Steel v Buklod ng Manggagawa

Facts: Following events that led its members to believe Facts: The Company was ordered by the DOLE and
that it was being intimidated and harassed by BLR to recognize the Union, but when the faction of
Lapanday and Cadeco, including the death of one the new union president submitted collective
union officer, the Union held a strike. bargaining proposals, the Company did not honor
them. Thus, the Union filed a notice of strike.
Held: The strike was illegal for having been conducted
a mere two days after the submission of the strike Held: Strike illegal for having been conducted by
vote, in violation of the statutory 7-‐day period which illegal means such as barricading the gate and injuring
must lapse after the submission, and before the actual non-‐strikers (violation of Art. 264(e)). Even if a
strike should be held. Strikes are regulated by law strike's objective is lawful, such as because of the
because strike is usually the last weapon of labor to company's refusal to bargain here, it can still be
compel capital to concede to its bargaining demands declared illegal if the means are illegal. However,
or to defend itself against unfair labor practices of responsibility for these acts must be on an individual
69


basis, not collectively, according to Art. 264(a). a. Unfair Labor Practice
Art. 263 (c). Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. –
G&S Transport Corp v. Tito S. Infante (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified
or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of
Facts: G&S allegedly received a letter from the Union
strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with
demanding the dismissal of 2 employees on the
the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date
ground that they were guilty of committing acts of
thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of
disloyalty by filing a petition calling for a local election.
notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly
G&S acceded and dismissed these 2 employees.
certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of
Subsequently, the respondents (employed by G&S as
strike may be filed by any legitimate labor
drivers) learned of this incident and stopped driving
organization in behalf of its members. However, in
their taxicabs in sympathy for their dismissed
case of dismissal from employment of union officers
colleagues.
duly elected in accordance with the union constitution
Held: Illegal strike. Under Art. 212, a valid strike and by-‐laws, which may constitute union busting,
presupposes the existence of a labor dispute. Here, where the existence of the union is threatened, the
there is no such labor dispute. As such, they 15-‐day cooling-‐off period shall not apply and the
committed an illegal strike in the form of a sit-‐down union may take action immediately. (As amended
strike. Pursuant to Art. 264, Union officers may be by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).
dismissed by mere participation and members cannot
be dismissed since there was no proof of illegal acts. Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co of the Phils

Facts: Shell dissolved its security guard section,
6. Types and Conversion despite such section being covered and assured by the
Master Iron Labor v NLRC existing CBA. The Union held a strike. Shell argued that
the move was within its management prerogative.
Facts: MILU enters into a CBA with Master Iron with a Held: Shell committed ULP in dissolving the security
provision that there will be no strike, lockout, or any guard section. Even though such is normally within
interruption of work, and an extra service allowance management prerogative, in this case, Shell violated
for all those employees performing work outside the the CBA, which protected the said section. The duty to
plant. To circumvent the second provision, Master Iron bargain is a continuous process which imposes on the
hires casual employees to do all the work to be done parties the obligation to live up to the terms of the
outside the plant. MILU tries to reconcile through the agreement. As such, it is undeniable that non-‐
DOLE, but Master Iron ignores them and refuses to compliance to the agreement constitutes an unfair
follow any agreements between the parties. MILU labor practice. Consequently, the strike held by the
stages a strike. The LA and NLRC declare this strike Union was not illegal because it was only made as a
illegal and terminated those who participated. response to the company’s commission of a ULP.

a. Bargaining Deadlock – Economic/ULP
Held: SC says that a no-‐strike clause in a CBA is Art. 263 (c), supra
applicable only to economic strikes, if the strike is
founded on an unfair labor practice of the employer, a Consolidated Labor Association of the Phils. v
strike declared by the union cannot be considered a Marsman and Co
violation of the no-‐strike clause. Since the strike was
only for implementation of a provision of the CBA, it is Facts: The Union staged a strike when they failed to
not an economic one. reach an agreement with the Company. The Company
called the employees back and promised to discuss
with the Union their demands. However, the Company
refused the admittance of some workers unless they
ceased to be active union members. As a result, the
70


strike was resumed. the assumption or certification order. If one has
already taken place at the time of assumption or
Held: Company guilty of ULP in its refusal to reinstate
certification, all striking or locked out employees shall
complaints because of their union activities. The
immediately return-‐to-‐work and the employer shall
striking employees have a right of reinstatement since
immediately resume operations and readmit all
the economic strike was converted to a ULP strike.
workers under the same terms and conditions
Although it started as an economic strike that arose
prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary
from a deadlock with regard to economic benefits, it
of Labor and Employment or the Commission may
was converted when the reason for strike became the
seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to
Company’s refusal to reinstate employees due to union
ensure compliance with this provision as well as
activities.
with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
c. Non-‐conversion—Strike to Lockout
In line with the national concern for and the highest
Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA respect accorded to the right of patients to life and
health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and
Facts: Members of the Union filed a Notice of Strike similar medical institutions shall, to every extent
and conducted a Strike vote. The Union and the possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only
company eventually entered into a Submission by labor and management but government as well, be
agreement, agreeing to submit the ULP issue for exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent,
voluntary arbitration. During the pendency of the their adverse effects on such life and health, through
arbitration, the company dismissed two union the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its
members, which triggered a strike. right to strike and by management to lockout. In
labor disputes adversely affecting the continued
Held: Strike was illegal. No strike or lockout can be
made during the pendency of the case/s. Voluntary operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical
institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or
arbitration was entered into precisely to discuss the
locking-‐out employer to provide and maintain an
ULP issue. There can be no good faith here as the
effective skeletal workforce of medical and other
Union was fully aware of the proceedings.
health personnel, whose movement and services shall
7. Grounds be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to
Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5, supra p. 64 insure the proper and adequate protection of the life
and health of its patients, most especially emergency
a. Allowable Strikes cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such
cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and
Art. 263 (c), supra p. 70
Employment may immediately assume, within twenty
four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of
b. Prohibited Strikes
such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or
Art. 263 (b), supra. p. 64 certify it to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties
are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders,
Art. 263 (g). Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment or the
(g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an action, including dismissal or loss of employment
industry indispensable to the national interest, the status or payment by the locking-‐out employer of
Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume backwages, damages and other affirmative relief, even
jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify criminal prosecution against either or both of them.
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the
have the effect of automatically enjoining the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining
intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to
71


the national interest, and from intervening at any time Employment shall also conduct a referendum by
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute secret balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or
in order to settle or terminate the same. before the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a
majority of the board of directors or trustees or the
partners holding the controlling interest in the case of
a partnership vote to accept the reduced offer, the
Art. 264 (a). Prohibited Activities. –
workers shall immediately return to work and the
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the
a strike or lockout without first having bargained signing of the agreement. (Incorporated by Section 28,
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
or without first having filed the notice required in the
preceding Article or without the necessary strike or i. Assumption of jurisdiction
lockout vote first having been obtained and reported Art. 263 (g), supra p. 71
to the Ministry.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v NLRC
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
certification or submission of the dispute to Facts: Employees alleged wage distortion and
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the demanded that the Company (SMC) make the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the necessary adjustments. When the Company allegedly
strike or lockout. did nothing, they stopped working overtime. Note that
overtime was included in their regular work schedule.
Any worker whose employment has been
Held: The employees’ refusal to adhere to the usual
terminated as a consequence of any unlawful
work schedule is illegal, prohibited by both law and
lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full
contract. Although engaging in concerted activities is a
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly
right granted to both employees and employers, there
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
are limitations to the exercise of this right. It is
union officer who knowingly participates in the
prohibited by law since Sec. 3 of RA 6727 provides for
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be
a specific procedure to correct wage distortions. It is
declared to have lost his employment status:
also prohibited by contract, as their CBA clearly
Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a
proscribed strikes or similar concerted activities as a
lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
mode of resolving disputes (instead the issue should
termination of his employment, even if a replacement
only go through the prescribed grievance procedure).
had been hired by the employer during such lawful
strike.
Biflex Philippines Inc Labor Union (NAFLU) v Filfex

Industrial
Art. 265. Improved offer balloting. -‐ In an effort to
settle a strike, the Department of Labor and Facts: Petitioner Unions joined the labor sector’s
Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret welga ng bayan without filing a notice of strike.
ballot on the improved offer of the employer on Respondent-‐employers terminated union officers
or before the 30th day of the strike. When at least pursuant to the labor arbiter’s decision. Unions
a majority of the union members vote to accept claimed that after joining the welga, employers locked
the improved offer the striking workers shall them out as punishment.
immediately return to work and the employer shall Held: Joining welga ng bayan is considered an illegal
thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the strike. The mandatory requirements for a strike
agreement. haven’t been complied with.There was no evidence to
prove the alleged lockout. Thus, under Art. 264(a),
In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and
union officers MAY be dismissed. This means that
72


management has the prerogative to terminate their courts of criminal and civil liabilities arising from
employment or reinstate them after the illegal strike violations of the rights and conditions of union
ceases. membership.
ii. Compulsory Arbitration, Def.

Art. 263 (g), supra p. 71 Employees Union of Bayer Phil v Bayer Phil Inc.

Union of Filipro Employees v Nestle Phils Inc Facts: EUBP was the SEBA of the rank and file
Facts: There were 3 labor cases wherein the union employees of Bayer. However, upon deadlock while
members staged illegal strikes. During such strikes, negotiating for a new CBA, a splinter group, REUBP,
the Minister of Labor and Employment assumed was formed. Eventually, Bayer entered into a new CBA
jurisdiction over the case and issued resolutions to with the splinter group. Thus, EUBP filed a ULP case
enjoin the workers to return to work immediately, but against Bayer. The ULP case was dismissed by the LA
the workers disobeyed such order. and NLRC for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was
only an intra-‐union dispute.

Held: Art. 263 and 264 are still in effect because no Held: Lower courts improperly dismissed the ULP
laws have been passed expressly repealing them. Art. case. Intra-‐union disputes are conflicts between and
264(g) provides for assumption and certification among union members, including grievances arising
orders which are executory in character and are to be from any violation of the rights and conditions of
strictly complied with even during the pendency of membership, violation of or disagreement over any
any petition questioning their validity. Regardless of provision of the union’s constitution or by-‐laws, or
the validity of their claims, the striking workers must disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the
cease and desist from any and all acts that tend to, or union. Examples of such disputes are contained in Rule
undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor. An XI of DO 40-‐03. This case did not fall under any of the
assumption and/or certification order of the Secretary examples under the Rule XI and the issue here was the
of Labor automatically results in a return-‐to-‐work of presence of ULP. Thus, the LA and NLRC had
all striking workers, whether or not a corresponding jurisdiction. Bayer was guilty of ULP.
order has been issued by the Secretary of Labor.
c. No Strike Clause
iii. Intra-‐union/Inter-‐union dispute Panay Electric Co v NLRC
Marino v Gamilla
Facts: The Union went on strike, protesting the
Facts: An election of union officers was declared null dismissal of its VP. The Company argued that such
and void. Respondents/Officers of the Union strike was illegal for violation of the “no strike, no
demanded that the Petitioners vacate the union office lock-‐out” clause in the CBA.
and denied them access. Petitioners filed a complaint Held: Although a no strike clause in a CBA is valid, it is
in the RTC for damages and injunction. only applicable to economic strikes. Strikes conducted
Held: Regular court has no jurisdiction because the by reason of ULP are still valid.
case is necessarily intertwined with the issue of the

legitimacy of the election. The BLR divisions of the
regional offices of the DOLE have jurisdiction over Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa M.
inter-‐union and intra-‐union disputes. Here, the dispute Greenfield v Ramos
over elections is an intra-‐union dispute which was
already filed with the Med-‐Arbitration Unit. However, Facts: The local union tried to disaffiliate. Pursuant to
with respect to damages, the RTC has jurisdiction. the CBA’s union security clause, the mother federation
Unlike the NLRC, the BLR is not vested with the forced Greenfield to dismiss the local union’s officers
jurisdiction over claims for damages. Under Art. 241, from employment. The local union claimed ULP and
there must be a separate institution before the regular went on strike despite a “no strike, no lockout clause”
73


in the CBA. 20, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).
Held: Not an illegal strike even though there was a “no
strike, no lockout clause” in the CBA. Such clause can
only be used against strikes undertaken as economic Art. 251. Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of
leverage, and not in cases of ULP (whether or not such collective bargaining agreements. – In the absence of
ULP is later on proven). an agreement or other voluntary arrangement
providing for a more expeditious manner of collective
8. Striking Party bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and the
Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 6, supra p. 64 representatives of the employees to bargain
collectively in accordance with the provisions of this
9. Procedural Requirements Code.
Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 5-‐11, supra p. 64
a. Effort to Bargain

Art. 252. Meaning of Duty to Bargain Collectively. -‐-‐The
Art. 264 (a), supra p. 72 duty to bargain collectively means the performance of
a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
Art. 250. Procedure in collective bargaining. – The negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours
following procedures shall be observed in collective of work and all other terms and conditions of
bargaining: employment including proposals for adjusting any
grievances or questions arising under such
(a) When a party desires to negotiate an agreement and executing a contract incorporating
agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the such agreements if requested by either party but such
other party with a statement of its proposals. The duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal
other party shall make a reply thereto not later than or to make any concession.
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice;
1. Employer’s counter-‐proposal
(b) Should differences arise on the basis of such notice
and reply, either party may request for a conference Club Filipino v. Bautista
which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days Facts: The Company claimed that the Union’s strike
from the date of request. was illegal on the ground that the Union failed to
attach the company’s counter-‐proposal to the notice of
(c) If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall
strike, as required under Art. 264(a).
intervene upon request of either or both parties or at
its own initiative and immediately call the parties to Held: Requirement does not apply. Art. 264(a) is
conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power qualified by the phrase “as far as practicable”. Here, it
to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the was not only impracticable but actually impossible for
parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty of the the Union to have attached the counter-‐proposal to its
parties to participate fully and promptly in the notice of strike as the Company had yet to furnish the
conciliation meetings the Board may call; same.
(d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, b. Filing of Notice of Intention
the parties are prohibited from doing any act which Art. 263 (c), supra p.70
disputes; and
(e) The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes Art. 263 (d). Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. –
amicably and encourage the parties to submit their
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such
case to a voluntary arbitrator. (As amended by Section
implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of
74


Labor and Employment may promulgate. 1986).

Art. 263 (e). Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. – Art. 264 (a), supra p. 72
(e) During the cooling-‐off period, it shall be the duty of Pilipino Telephone Corp v PILTEA
the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should Facts: The Union filed two notices of strike. After the
the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the filing of the first, the Secretary of Labor issued an
requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of assumption order and directed both parties not to do
the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer anything that would exacerbate the situation. Despite
may declare a lockout. the order, the Union filed a second notice and went on
strike.
Held: The strike was illegal for non-‐compliance with
Art. 264 (a), supra p.72 procedural requirements and defiance of the
Secretary’s order. The Union did not comply with the
mandatory requirements as set forth in Art. 263 in
Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 7, supra p. 64 that they did not observe (1) the required strike-‐vote
before the commencement of the strike and (2) the
c. Observance of Cooling-‐off Period mandatory cooling-‐off period between notice and
Art. 263 (c), supra p. 70 actual strike. As to the cooling-‐off period, there was no
union busting that took place, which would have
warranted its nonobservance.
Art. 263 (e), supra
d. Vote Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA

Art. 263 (f). Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts. –
Facts: The Union argued that assuming arguendo that
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved the mandatory requirements under Art. 263 were not
by a majority of the total union membership in met, they may be dispensed with in cases of union
the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret busting (the ULP issue was under voluntary
ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. arbitration).
A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a Held: Strike was illegal. The law is clear. Under Art.
majority of the board of directors of the corporation or 263, the notice of strike and strike vote are
association or of the partners in a partnership, indispensible. Only the 15-‐day cooling-‐off period may
obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that be forgone in cases of union busting, where the very
purpose. The decision shall be valid for the existence of the union is threatened.
duration of the dispute based on substantially the
same grounds considered when the strike or lockout 10. Test of Legality
vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative
a. Legal Strikes
or upon the request of any affected party, supervise
the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the i. Purpose and Means test
union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the
results of the voting at least seven days before the Reliance Surety and Insurance Co v NLRC
intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-‐
off period herein provided. (As amended by Batas Facts: The Company changed seating arrangement of
Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981 and further employees. Employees (union members) protested
amended by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, and refusing to comply. They were suspended and
75


after investigation, dismissed. The Union held a strike. right by providing procedural steps before a strike
Note that the Union failed to observe procedural may be conducted. Failure to follow the mandated
requirements (notice, 2/3 strike vote by secret ballot, steps will render the strike illegal.
and submission of the strike vote to the DOLE seven
days prior to the strike) and some strikers harassed iii. Defenses—Good Faith
non-‐strikers and committed acts of violence. Master Iron Labor Union v NLRC
Held: The strike was illegal. In jurisprudence, good
faith is a valid defense against claims of illegality of a Facts: The CBA contained a provision providing an
strike, but here union officers clearly staged the strike extra service allowance for all those employees
in bad faith. Rather than a finding of good faith, there performing work outside the plant. To circumvent the
was a finding of arrogance, pride, and cynicism. second provision, Master Iron hires casual employees
to do all the work to be done outside the plant.
Ii. Guidelines and Balancing of Interest Eventually, MILU staged a strike in spite of a no-‐strike
clause also being provided for in the CBA.
Shell Oil Workers Union v Shell Co of Phils
Held: A no-‐strike clause in a CBA is applicable only to
economic strikes.. Here, the purpose of the strike was
Facts: Union staged a strike because the security guard
for the implementation of a provision of the CBA and
section was dissolved contrary to their CBA.
was thus not for economic reasons. As is in this case

wherein the strikers believed in good faith that ULP
Held: Strike was valid. The determination of the
existed, the presumption of legality prevails even if the
legality or illegality of a strike, particularly in this
allegations of ULP are subsequently found out to be
enlightened era of progressive thinking on labor-‐
untrue.
management relations is something that cannot be
achieved by mere straight-‐jacketed legalistic
argumentation and rationalization; the process is
broader and deeper than that, for to do justice in National Union of Workers Hotels, Restaurant and
deciding such an issue, it is imperative that utmost Allied Industries v NLRC
consideration should be given to the particular
circumstances of each case, with a view to having the Facts: The “rebel union” filed a notice of strike on the
most comprehensive understanding of the motivations basis of ULP. NCMB dismissed the notice because the
of the parties, in the light of human needs on the part issue was a non-‐strikeable, being an intra-‐union
of labor, and in the perspective of the orderly and dispute. Meanwhile, the Hotel dismissed one of their
economical conduct of business and industry, on the officers, which led to a wildcat strike.
part of management Held: Illegal strike. Even when the employer did not
commit ULP, a strike is still legal provided that the
strikers believed in good faith that ULP acts existed.
Stamford Mark Corp v Julian This belief must be warranted by the circumstances.
Such is not the case here. The dismissal of one of their
officers was not a sufficient ground to justify the
Facts: Upon receiving a letter that the employees had
strike. For one, there were alternative remedies, such
formed a union, the management of the companies
as questioning the dismissal’s legality.
began dismissing employees. Employees went on
strike. 2. Illegal Strikes
Held: Illegal strike. There was no showing that the
i. Basis of Illegality
Union was a legitimate labor organization entitled to
file a notice of strike. Furthermore, the requirements Art. 263 (b), supra p. 64
prescribed in Art. 263(c)-‐(f) were not complied with.
Although the right to strike is embedded in the
Constitution, the Law regulates the exercise of the said
76


Art. 263 (c), supra p. 70 lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full
backwages. Any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or
union officer who knowingly participates in the
Art. 265, supra p. 72 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
Art. 264 (a), supra p. 72 termination of his employment, even if a replacement
had been hired by the employer during such lawful
A. Soriano Aviation v Employees Association of A. strike.
Soriano Aviation
(b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with,

by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation,
Facts: Following the suspension of eight mechanics,
any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor
the Union went on strike against the Company. Over a
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-‐
period of 9 non-‐consecutive days across 8 months,
organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or
strikers shouted insults using a megaphone, threw abet such obstruction or interference.
water at a personnel manager, shouted at the COO, a
manager, non-‐striking employees, and officers, threw (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-‐
gravel and sand at the car of the company’s lead man, breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-‐
etc. breaker.
Held: It was an illegal strike. In accordance with Art.
(d) No public official or employee, including officers
264, even an the otherwise legal strike may be
and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the
rendered illegal if the means employed were illegal.
Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or
Even if the acts were committed on non-‐consecutive
armed person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in
days, the acts were still pervasive. Art. 264 doesn’t
any manner, any individual who seeks to replace
require that violence must be continuous or that they
strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike
should exist for the entire duration of the strike.
area, or work in place of the strikers. The police force
ii. Illegal Acts/Prohibited Activities
shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence
or other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That
Art. 264. Prohibited Activities. –
nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare public officer from taking any measure necessary to
a strike or lockout without first having bargained maintain peace and order, protect life and property,
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book and/or enforce the law and legal order. (As amended
or without first having filed the notice required in the by Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986).
preceding Article or without the necessary strike or
(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any
lockout vote first having been obtained and reported
act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct
to the Ministry.
the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after thoroughfares. (As amended by Batas Pambansa
certification or submission of the dispute to Bilang 227, June 1, 1982).
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph
strike or lockout. Intl v DOLE Sec

Any worker whose employment has been Facts: The Labor Secretary took jurisdiction and
terminated as a consequence of any unlawful issued a return to work order. The Union stopped
some employees from going back to work by blocking
77


the entrances. The Secretary issued another return to grounds that the Union interposed for denying
work order, with police assistance, but the Company admission of the photos are also not binding on the
stopped 21 employees from entering the premises and NLRC.
eventually dismissed them.
iii. Effect of Union Non-‐registration
Held: Illegal strike. The Labor Secretary's assumption
of jurisdiction over the dispute or its certification to Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Coop v
the NLRC for compulsory arbitration automatically Kilusang Manggagawa
enjoins the impending strike or lockout and all
employees shall immediately return to work. The Facts: KMLMS filed a notice of strike and conducted its
Union and its officers, as well as the workers, defied strike vote before its registration as an independent
the Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction and the labor organization was granted by the DOLE.
return to work order. This defiance made the strike a Held: The strike is illegal. When KMLMS filed their
prohibited activity under Art. 264. As such, the notice of strike, it had not yet acquired legal
dismissal of union officers for mere participation was personality and, thus, could not legally represent the
valid. eventual union and its members. Also, when KMLMS
conducted the strike-‐vote, there was still no union to
speak of. It only acquired legal personality as an
C. Alcantara & Sons Inc. v CA independent legitimate labor organization the day
after it conducted its strike-‐vote. Consequently, the

mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the
Facts: ALSONS and its labor union had a CBA and
strike-‐vote report were ineffective. The law, in
agreed on a “no strike, no lockout” clause. Union still
providing who may declare a strike or lockout, refers
held a strike.
to a “duly certified or recognized bargaining agent”
Held: Court held that even if the procedural and (Art. 263 of the Labor Code) and “legitimate labor
requirements were complied with, the strike was organization” (Rule XXII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules
illegal because of the “no strike, no lockout” agreement Implementing the Labor Code).
in the CBA. Since the strike was illegal, the Union
officers can, in accordance with law, be terminated iv. Effect of Illegality
from employment for their actions. This includes the Art. 264 (a), supra p. 72
shop stewards. As regards the rank and file Union
members, Art. 264 of the Labor Code provides that Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA
termination is not warranted by the mere fact that a
union member has taken part in an illegal strike. It Facts: The union filed a Notice of Strike and conducted
must be shown that such a union member, clearly a strike vote. The union and the company eventually
identified, performed an illegal act or acts during the entered into a Submission Agreement, agreeing to
strike. In the case at bar, substantial evidence supports submit the ULP issue for voluntary arbitration. During
the termination of certain union members. Affidavits the pendency of the arbitration, the company
and testimonies, the NLRC Sheriff’s report, and photos dismissed 2 union members. The union staged a
taken of the strike all reveal that those union members wildcat strike. LA declared the strike illegal and the
threatened, coerced, and intimidated non-‐striking members’ termination valid. NLRC granted
employees, officers, suppliers and customers; respondents’ appeal. CA affirmed the NLRC.
obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the
company premises; and resisted and defied the Held: SC ruled in favor of petitioner. Strike was illegal.
implementation of the writ of preliminary injunction Art. 264 of the Labor Code states that it is prohibited
issued against them. The mere fact that the criminal for a strike or lockout to be declared after assumption
complaints filed against such union members were of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary of
subsequently dismissed does not extinguish their Labor, or after certification or submission of the
liability under the Labor Code, nor does it bar the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration, or
admission of the evidence presented. The technical during the pendency of the cases involved in the
78


lockout. At the time the strike was staged, voluntary be validly dismissed for illegally blocking ingress to
arbitration between the parties was ongoing by virtue and egress from company premises during the illegal
of the Submission Agreement. In Samahang strike, as they were individually identified through
Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-‐NAFLU v Sulpicion affidavits of other PHIMCO employees.
Lines, Inc., the Court explained that the effect of illegal
strikes (as outlined in Art. 264) differs between Liabilities of participating members/officers of
workers and union officers who participate in them. the union
An ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for Art. 264 (a), supra p. 72
mere participation; there must be proof that he
committed illegal acts, he must be identified based on Danilo Escario et al v NLRC
substantial evidence, and liability is to be determined
on an individual basis. A union officer, on the other Facts: Petitioners were employees of Pinakamasarap
hand, may be terminated upon proof that he Corporation who engaged in a strike. The Labor
knowingly participated in an illegal strike, whether or Arbiter found the strike to be illegal. This was affirmed
not he committed illegal acts. by the NLRC but the latter reversed the ruling on
abandonment and reinstated the union members who
were terminated. Petitioners sought payment of full
Phimco Industries Inc v Phimco Industries Labor backwages (from the date of their dismissal to the date
Association of their reinstatement), pursuant to Art. 279 of the
Labor Code.
Facts: PILA staged a strike and picketed outside of Held: Petitioners are not entitled to backwages,
PHIMCO premises. PHIMCO dismissed the union because their dismissal is not covered by Art. 279
officers and participating employees. Strike was also (employee unjustly dismissed due to employer’s
declared illegal by the NLRC. failure to observe substantive or procedural due
Held: Strike was valid, but the means employed process), but rather, Art. 264. Art. 264 authorizes the
rendered it illegal. Although the requirements for a award of full backwages only when the termination of
valid strike were complied with, the picketers employment is a consequence of an unlawful lockout.
prevented the ingress and egress of PHIMCO managers For those that result from illegal strike, the provision
and non-‐participating employees from the company distinguishes between a union officer and a union
premises. The picketing also created an intimidating member. The petitioners were terminated for joining a
atmosphere. Thus the strike was held illegal. IN this strike that was later declared to be illegal. The NLRC
case, the 10 union officers stand to be dismissed as ordered their reinstatement, or in lieu of their
participating union officers because they knowingly reinstatement, the payment of backwages, because
participated in an illegal strike. In Samahang they were mere rank and file workers whom the
Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc.-‐NAFLU v Sulpicio union’s officers had misled into joining the illegal
Lines, Inc., the Court explained that the effect of illegal strike. They were not unjustly dismissed from work.
strikes (as outlined in Art. 264) differs between

workers and union officers who participate in them.
An ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for Yolito Fabriquelan v Monterey Foods Corp
mere participation; there must be proof that he
committed illegal acts, he must be identified based on Facts: The union filed a notice of strike. The DOLE
substantial evidence, and liability is to be determined Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. The
on an individual basis. A union officer, on the other union filed another notice of strike. The company then
terminated the employment of 17 union officers. The
hand, may be terminated upon proof that he
union filed a third notice of strike. The DOLE Secretary
knowingly participated in an illegal strike, whether or included the last 2 notices of strike in his assumption
not he commits illegal acts. In the case at bar, the order. The DOLE Secretary upheld termination of the
participating union officers may be validly dismissed union officers.
because they knowingly participated in an illegal Held: Of the 17 union officers, only 4 were illegally
strike, while 37 participating union members may also
79


dismissed. While an ordinary worker who participated forum. This was done for the promotion of the
in an illegal strike cannot be terminated unless it is common good, considering that a lingering strike
also proved that he committed illegal acts during the could be inimical to the interest of both employer and
strike, a union officer can be terminated upon proof employee.
that he knowingly participated in an illegal strike,
whether or not he committed illegal acts. In
termination cases, the burden of proof is upon the
employer to show that the dismissal was for just Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph v.
cause. In this case, the company was not able to show DOLE, supra.
that all 17 officers deserved to be dismissed.
Fabriquelan, the union president, was illegally Facts: Long dispute between the Union and the
dismissed. His dismissal was based on a security company over the increase in daily wage proposals for
guard’s report. The report, however, stated that it was the new CBA. Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction
a different employee, who participated in the and issued return-‐to-‐work order. Union stopped some
slowdown. Clearly, his dismissal was based on his employees from going back to work by blocking the
being the union president. 3 other union officers were company entrances. Secretary issued another return-‐
likewise illegally dismissed because evidence shows
to-‐work order, complete with police assistance. Union
that they did not participate in the strike.
agreed to go back to work, but company stopped 21
v. Effect of Assumption/Certification Order employees (union officers) from entering the
Art. 263 (g), supra p. 71 premises, and placed them on preventive suspension
and 1st notice with chance to explain. Employees went
to Secretary for relief, and the latter ordered the
YSS Employees v YSS Laboratories
company to reinstate them. Company reinstated them
Facts: Due to business losses the company only in payroll and issued another 1st notice with
implemented retrenchment program. Of the 11
chance to explain, based on different grounds.
retrenched employees, 9 were members and officers
of the union. The union staged a strike claiming Employees offered explanation but were terminated
discrimination on the implementation of the anyway. CA affirmed Secretary’s award of daily wage
retrenchment program. After several conciliation increase for the new CBA, but resolved the issue of
proceedings and the parties not having reached an illegal dismissal itself, holding that only 1 dismissal
agreement, the Labor Secretary issued an order was supported by substantial evidence.
certifying the labor dispute to a compulsory
arbitration. The order directed that all the employees Held: 5 of 6 employees were legally dismissed. It is the
return to their work and that the company to accept company’s prerogative to dismiss employees on legal
them. The company accepted all workers except those grounds, and the violation of the Secretary’s return-‐to-‐
who were previously retrenched. The company work order, as well as the prevention of other workers
claimed grave abuse of discretion when the return-‐to-‐
from returning to work, was a legal ground for
work order included the retrenched employees.
dismissal. Under the law, the Secretary’s assumption
Held: The Labor Secretary did not gravely abuse his of jurisdiction over a labor dispute (or its certification
discretion in certifying the dispute to compulsory
to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration) shall have the
arbitration and in including retrenched employees in
the return-‐to-‐work-‐order. Pursuant to Art. 263(g) of effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
the Labor Code on the settlement of labor disputes, impending strike or lockout, and all striking or locked
assumption and certification orders are executory in out employees shall immediately return to work, and
character and are to be strictly complied with by the the employer shall immediately resume operations
parties, even during the pendency of any petition and readmit all workers under the same terms and
questioning their validity. The certification attests to conditions before the strike or lockout. The union
the urgency of the matter, affecting as it does an
defied the Secretary’s return-‐to-‐work order, which
industry indispensable to the national interest, while
the order is issued in the exercise of the court’s made the strike illegal and thus a valid ground for
compulsory power of arbitration, and therefore must dismissal under Art. 264 of the Labor Code. The union
be obeyed until set aside. In the case at bar, the orders officers were liable not only for defying the Secretary,
were issued to preserve the status quo ante while the but also for leading, instigating, and participating in a
main issues (validity of the retrenchment and legality work slowdown during the CBA negotiations without
of the strike) were being threshed out in the proper complying with the mandatory legal requirements of a
80


strike notice and strike vote. delicto. The situation warrants the restoration of the
status quo ante, bringing the parties back to their
Mass Leave respective positions before the illegal strike and illegal
Solidbank Corp v EU Gamier lockout through the reinstatement of the employees
(Philippines Inter-‐Fashion, Inc. v NLRC). But while
Facts: Solidbank and the Union reached a bargaining they are entitled to reinstatement, the employees are
deadlock regarding their CBA. The Secretary of Labor not entitled to backwages, as these are only ordered
assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and directed under exceptional circumstances (e.g. employer is
both parties to desist from committing any acts guilty of oppression and union-‐busting activities, and
exacerbating the situation. Respondents staged a mass strikers ordered reinstated are denied such
protest anyway, allegedly not to exert pressure on the reinstatement). Since the strike was illegal, the
company, but to express dissatisfaction over the principle of “no work, no pay” is applicable.
decision of the Labor Secretary subsequent to his
12. Employment of Strike Breakers
assumption of jurisdiction. The bank terminated those
employees that did not immediately go back to work. Art. 264 (c), supra p.77
Held: The mass protest was an illegal strike, not

merely an exercise of free expression. A strike
Art. 212 (r). Definitions. –
comprises not only concerted work stoppages, but
also slowdowns, mass leaves, sitdowns, attempts to
(r)"Strike-‐breaker" means any person who obstructs,
damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and
impedes, or interferes with by force, violence,
facilities, etc. The mass actions did not only stem from
coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful
the Secretary of Labor’s order, but from the labor
picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work
dispute caused by the bargaining deadlock. Once the
or in the exercise of the right of self-‐organization or
Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor collective bargaining.
dispute, such jurisdiction should not be interfered
with by a strike or lockout. A strike that is undertaken Improved Offer Balloting and Strikes
despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an
Art. 265, supra. p. 72
assumption order and/or certification is a prohibited
activity and thus illegal. Art. 264 also prohibits a strike
“during the pendency of cases involving the same

grounds for the same strike.” Respondents knowingly Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 12, supra. p. 64
conducted their strike while proceedings before the
Secretary of Labor were still pending. Termination of C. Slowdown as Concerted Activity
the union officers was valid because they knowingly
participated in an illegal strike, but the rest of the See again: Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v
individual respondents were not validly terminated NLRC
because there was no substantial evidence that they
committed illegal acts. Facts: Due to the passage of a new law, the employees
alleged that a wage distortion has arised and should be
11. In case of illegal strike, illegal lockout/in pari acted upon by SMC. Since they allege that the company
delicto doctrine – Status quo ante didn’t act on their demand, they stopped working
Automotive Engine Rebuilders v Progresibong overtime (their regular work schedule incorporated
Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa AER overtime every shift). SMC filed a complaint against
the union, arguing that the slowdown is illegal
Facts: AER and Unyon filed cases against each other. Held: The slowdown was forbidden both by law and
Held: AER was guilty of illegal lockout and that the contract. A slowdown (as defined by SMC) is a “strike
Unyon was guilty of illegal concerted activities. Since on the installment plan”; a willful reduction in the rate
both parties were guilty of ULP, they were in pari of work by concerted action by workers for the
81


purpose of restricting the output of the employer, in blotter reported that the picketing was peaceful.
relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which Moreover, although the companies during the strike
workers, without a complete stoppage of work, retard were holding offices elsewhere, some managerial
production or their performance of duties and employees were told to report for work at the building
functions to compel management to grant their being picketed, most likely to create such an incident.
demands. A slowdown is an inherently illegal, because Under the circumstances, the picketers were not
while the employees “continue to work and remain at legally bound to yield their grounds and withdraw
their positions and accept the wages paid to them,” from the picket lines. Being where the law expects
they “select what part of their allotted tasks they care them to be in the legitimate exercise of their rights,
to perform of their own volition, or refuse, openly or they had every reason to defend themselves and their
secretly, to the employer’s damage, to do other work.” rights from any assault or unlawful transgression.
Besides, some disorder is to be expected in any
D. Picketing extensive or long drawn-‐out strike. The heated
altercations and occasional blows exchanged on the
Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13, supra p. 64 picket line do not affect or diminish the right to strike.
The incident that occurred was a necessary incident of
1. Definition the strike and should not be considered as a bar to
reinstatement.
2. Nature and Purpose of Picket Line

Insular Life Assurancce Co Ltd. Employees Assn. v
Insular Life Assurance Co. Sta. Rosa Coca-‐Cola Plant Employees Union v CCBP

Facts: Unions jointly submitted proposals to modify Facts: The union members held a strike, to the
the renewal of their respective CBAs. Negotiations detriment of the company. Union claimed it was not a
were conducted but there was a deadlock. The unions strike but only their exercise of their right to picket.
eventually went on strike. To try and get the
Held: Petitioners staged a strike, and not merely a
employees back to work, the companies sent 2 letters.
picket. Picketing involves merely the marching to and
In the first, they “bribed” the workers with promises of
fro at the premises of the employer, usually
free meals, comfortable cots, overtime pay, free coffee
accompanied by the display of placards and other
and occasional movies, as well as more benefits for
signs making known the facts involved in a labor
their families while in the second, they subtly
dispute. In a labor dispute, it means the stationing of
threatened the strikers by saying that they could no
one or more persons to observe and attempt to
longer hold the strikers’ positions open and by giving
observe. The purpose of a picket is to be a means of
an ultimatum. The companies also attempted to break
peaceable persuasion (Dache v. Rose). On the other,
the picket lines, filed criminal charges against some
Art. 212 of the Labor Code defines a strike as “a
strikers, and used 2 employees who were the former
temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action
legal counsels of the unions.
of employees as a result of an industrial or labor
Held: The Companies were guilty of violating the dispute.” However, the term “strike” encompasses not
employees’ right to organize, form and join labor only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns,
organizations. The companies didn’t just discriminate mass leaves, sit-‐downs, attempts to damage, destroy
against all the strikers in general—they separated the or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar
active from the less active unionists on the basis of activities. What is definitive of whether an action is a
their militancy on the picket lines. Active unionists strike and not merely a picket is the totality of the
were refused readmission even after they were able to circumstances surrounding the situation. As the action
secure clearances from the competent authorities with in the case at bar was a strike and an illegal one at that,
respect to the criminal charges filed against them. the individual officers and shop stewards of the union
There are grounds to believe that the picketers were may be validly dismissed.
not responsible for the alleged violent incident upon
which the criminal charges were based. The police
82


3. Picketing and Libel Laws

Facts: Liwayway Publications’ office is in the same
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v
premises as that of Permanent Concrete Products’.
Philnabank Employees Assn.
One day, Permanent Concrete Workers Union staged a

strike against the company. They later blocked the
Facts: PCIB, hurt and affected by a placard alluding to
entrance to Liwayway’s bodega, hindering the
it during a strike of PNB’s employees against PNB, filed
publication from access to their newsprint. Liwayway
a libel suit against the said employees.
asked for a writ of preliminary injunction against the
Held: The court found no libelous statement, strikers from the CFI, which was granted. The Union
underscoring that it can hardly be expected that the questioned the CFI’s power to issue the writ.
“inaccuracies and imprecision” in language arising
Held: The union’s right to strike, although guaranteed
from strikes and other labor disputes (which elicit
by the Constitution, may be regulated if the rights of
strong emotional response from both labor and
third parties or “innocent bystanders” are affected
management) will be courteous and polite. In deciding
(Phil. Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) vs.
suits for libel, the judiciary must ascertain whether or
Judge Gaudencio Cloribel et al.) Liwayway, not being a
not the alleged offending words may be embraced by
party to the labor dispute, was an innocent bystander.
the guarantees of free speech and free press (U.S. v.
(Liwayway is not in any way related to the striking
Bustos). From the time of Mortrera v. CIR (1947), the
union, except for the fact that it was the sublessee of a
SC has been committed to the view that peaceful
bodega in the company’s compound. Liwayway’s
picketing is part of the freedom of speech guarantee of
business is exclusively the publication of weekly
the Constitution. The labor union made use of its
magazines, which has absolutely no relation or
constitutional right to picket.
connection whatsoever with the cause of the strike of
4. Curtailment the union against their company, much less with the
terms, conditions or demands of the strikers.) As such,
Nagkahiusang Manggagawa sa Cuizon Hotel v the CFI could validly issue a writ of preliminary
Libron injunction against the union to protect Liwayway’s
interests.
Facts: The Labor Arbiter issued an order ruling that
since a strike had been declared illegal, sanctions Prohibited Activities – Peaceful Picketing
would likewise be imposed on immediate incidents Art. 264 (b), supra p.77
thereto, such as picketing. In other words, once
strikers are permanently enjoined from staging the
illegal strike, the picketing staged should also be
simultaneously lifted, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 13, supra p. 64
Held: The SC did not agree. Citing PCIB v. Philnabank, E. Role of Peace Officers During Strikes and
the court reiterated that from the time of Mortrera v. Picketing
CIR (1947), it has been committed to the view that
peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech 1. Escorting
guarantee of the Constitution. Thus, picketing cannot Art. 264 (d), supra p.77
be prohibited as long as it is done peacefully. However,
peaceful picketing cannot countenance acts of 2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators
illegality. Art. 266. Requirement for Arrest and Detention. –
Except on grounds of national security and public
5. Regulation/Restrictions, Innocent Third Party
peace or in case of commission of a crime, no union
Rule and Liabilities
members or union organizers may be arrested or
Liwayway Publishing Co. Inc. v Permanent detained for union activities without previous
Concrete Workers Union consultations with the Secretary of Labor.

83


Summary: Employer Lockout
“Episode X: The Employer Strikes Back”
A. Definition and B. Effect on Work Relationship

• “Lockout” means any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial
or labor dispute.
• Simply stated, the effect is that employees cannot enter work premises or are not given work to do.
• In effect, this is the employer’s counterpart to the employees’ right to strike. Grounds, prohibitions, requirements,
etc., of a lockout are all similar to that of a strike.

C. Ground for Lockout

• Bargaining deadlocks (Art. 263(c) only mentions this ground)
• Rule XXII, Omnibus Rules provides for a second ground: unfair labor practice
o ULP here is “ONLY flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions”

D. Prohibited Lockouts

1. Employers may not stage a lockout on grounds of inter-‐union and intra-‐union disputes.
2. Secretary of Labor (or President) intervenes:
o When, in the opinion of the Secretary, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a lockout,
o In an industry indispensible to the national interest-‐
o Secretary may (a) assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it OR (b) certify it to the Commission for
compulsory arbitration
o Effect of assumption/certification: Automatic enjoinment of the impending lockout as specified in the order
OR if a lockout has already taken place, the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all
workers (under the same terms and conditions as pre-‐lockout).
o Note: the President may, at any time, (1) determine which industries are indispensible to the national
interest and (2) intervene at any time and assume jurisdiction over any labor dispute.
3. No lockout shall be declared without (1) first collectively bargaining pursuant to Title VII and (2) fulfilling the
procedural requirements (below).
4. No lockout shall be declared during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the lockout.

E. Procedural Requirements

• After a deadlock in collective bargaining, and before conducting a lockout, and employer must:
1. File a notice for lockout with the regional office of the Board, at least 30 days before date that lockout is
intended for bargaining deadlocks or 15 days in cases of ULP.
o Copy served to the other party concerned
2. Lockout vote must be obtained and reported to DOLE.
o Must be approved by a majority of (a) the Board of Directors of the employer, corporation, or association OR
(b) the partners in a partnership,
o Obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for this purpose.
• “Cooling-‐off period”: The period between the filing and the actual lockout date (at least 30 days). Here, DOLE must
exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation. If dispute still unsettled after this period, then the employer may
proceed with the declaration of lockout.
• No employer shall use/employ any strike-‐breaker.

F. Effect of Illegal Lockout

84


• Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of such shall be entitled to reinstatement
and full backwages.

X. Employer Lockout
A. Basis, Limitation and Definition 30 days before the intended date thereof. Xxx (As
amended by E.O. No. 111, December 24, 1986)
Art. 263(b). Strikes, picketing and lockouts. –
D. Prohibited Lockout
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in
concerted activities for purposes of collective Art. 263(b)(g). Strikes, picketing and lockouts. –
bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.
The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike (b) Xxx. The right of xxx of employers to lockout,
and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent consistent with the national interest, shall continue to
with the national interest, shall continue to be be recognized and respected. However, xxx no
recognized and respected. However, no labor union employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving
may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on inter-‐union and intra-‐union disputes.
grounds involving inter-‐union and intra-‐union
disputes. (g) 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 Labor and Employment may assume
Art. 212(p) jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
(p) "Lockout" means any temporary refusal of an arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have
employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
labor dispute. 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,
xxx the employer shall immediately resume
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule 1, sec. 1(gg) operations and readmit all workers under the same
terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
"Representation Officer" refers to a person duly lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or
authorized to conduct and supervise certification the Commission may seek the assistance of law
elections in accordance with Rule VI of this Book. enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this
provision as well as with such orders as he may issue
B. Effect on Work Relationship to enforce the same.
Art. 212(p), supra In line with the national concern for and the highest
respect accorded to the right of patients to life and
C. Ground for Lockout health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and
similar medical institutions shall, to every extent
Art. 263(c). Strikes, picketing and lockouts. – possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only
by labor and management but government as well, be
(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, xxx the employer exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent,
may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least their adverse effects on such life and health, through
the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right
85


to strike and by management to lockout. In labor strike or lockout.
disputes adversely affecting the continued operation
of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall Any worker whose employment has been terminated
be the duty of the striking union or locking-‐out as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
workforce of medical and other health personnel,
whose movement and services shall be unhampered E. Procedural Requirements
and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper
and adequate protection of the life and health of its Art. 264(a)(c)(d)(e). Prohibited activities. –
patients, most especially emergency cases, for the
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a
duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases,
strike or lockout without first having bargained
therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
may immediately assume, within twenty-‐four (24)
without first having filed the notice required in the
hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a
strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify
it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For
to the Ministry.
enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption
and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain certification or submission of the dispute to
of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
or loss of employment status or payment by the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
locking-‐out employer of backwages, damages and strike or lockout.
other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution
against either or both of them. (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-‐
breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-‐
The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the breaker.
Philippines shall not be precluded from determining
the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to (d) No public official or employee, including officers
the national interest, and from intervening at any time and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the
and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or armed
in order to settle or terminate the same. person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in any
work in place of the strikers. The police force shall
Art. 264(a). Prohibited activities. – keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or
other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any
strike or lockout without first having bargained public officer from taking any measure necessary to
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or maintain peace and order, protect life and property,
without first having filed the notice required in the and/or enforce the law and legal order. (As amended
preceding Article or without the necessary strike or by E.O. No. 111, December 24, 1986)
to the Ministry. (e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public
certification or submission of the dispute to thoroughfares. (As amended by B.P. Bilang 227, June 1,
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the 1982)
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
86


of notice shall be fifteen (15) days. However, in case of
unfair labor practice involving the dismissal from
Art. 263(e). Strikes, picketing and lockouts. – employment of any union officer duly elected in
accordance with the union constitution and by-‐laws
(e) During the cooling-‐off period, it shall be the duty of which may constitute union-‐busting where the
the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and existence of the union is threatened, the fifteen-‐day
conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should cooling-‐off period shall not apply and the union may
the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the take action immediately after the strike vote is
requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of conducted and the results thereof submitted to the
the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer appropriate regional branch of the Board.
may declare a lockout.
Section 8. Contents of notice. -‐ The notice shall state,
among others, the names and addresses of the
employer and the union involved, the nature of the
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule XXII, Sections 5-‐11 industry to which the employer belongs, the number
of union members and of the workers in the
Section 5. Grounds for strike or lockout. -‐ A strike or bargaining unit, and such other relevant data as may
lockout may be declared in cases of bargaining facilitate the settlement of the dispute, such as a brief
deadlocks and unfair labor practices. Violations of statement or enumeration of all pending labor
collective bargaining agreements, except flagrant disputes involving the same parties.
and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic
provisions, shall not be considered unfair labor In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as
practice and shall not be strikeable. No strike or far as practicable, further state the unresolved issues
lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter-‐ in the bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by
union and intra-‐union disputes OR without first the written proposals of the union, the counter-‐
having filed a notice of strike or lockout or without the proposals of the employer and the proof of a request
necessary strike or lockout vote having been obtained for conference to settle the differences. In cases of
and reported to the Board. Neither will a strike be unfair labor practices, the notice shall, as far as
declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the practicable, state the acts complained of and the
Secretary or after certification or submission of the efforts taken to resolve the dispute amicably.
dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or
during the pendency of cases involving the same In case a notice does not conform with the
grounds for the strike or lockout. (Amended by DO 40-‐ requirements of this and the foregoing section/s, the
A-‐03) regional branch of the Board shall inform the
concerned party of such fact.
Section 6. Who may declare a strike or lockout. -‐ Any
certified or duly recognized bargaining representative Section 9. Action on Notice. -‐ Upon receipt of the notice,
may declare a strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks the regional branch of the Board shall exert all efforts
and unfair labor practices. The employer may declare at mediation and conciliation to enable the parties to
a lockout in the same cases. In the absence of a settle the dispute amicably. The regional branch of the
certified or duly recognized bargaining representative, Board may, upon agreement of the parties, treat a
any legitimate labor organization in the establishment notice as a preventive mediation case. It shall also
may declare a strike but only on grounds of unfair encourage the parties to submit the dispute to
labor practices. voluntary arbitration.
Section 7. Notice of strike or lockout. -‐ In bargaining During the proceedings, the parties shall not do any
deadlocks, a notice of strike or lockout shall be filed act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement
with the regional branch of the Board at least thirty of the dispute. They are obliged, as part of their duty to
(30) days before the intended date thereof, a copy of bargain collectively in good faith and to participate
said notice having been served on the other party fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings called
concerned. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period by the regional branch of the Board.
87


A notice, upon agreement of the parties, may be FACTS: The Union filed a Notice of Strike. Philtread
referred to alternative modes of dispute resolution, filed a notice of lockout charging the union with acts of
ULP, and terminated union officers. The union filed a
including voluntary arbitration.
complaint for illegal dismissal. The Secretary of Labor
issued a return-‐to-‐work order; NLRC called the parties
Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. – Xxx. A decision to
to conciliation meetings, then ordered reinstatement
declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of for all dismissed. The company partially complied, but
the Board of Directors of the employer, corporation or refused to reinstate 36 supervisors facing charges of
association or the partners in a partnership obtained libel filed by the company.
by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose.
HELD: The NLRC decision was rendered with due
process. Pursuant to Art. 263, the Secretary of Labor,
The regional branch of the Board may, at its own
upon finding that the labor dispute was causing or was
initiative or upon request of any affected party, likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every indispensable to the national interest, certified the
case, the union or the employer shall furnish the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, which
regional branch of the Board and the notice of is what the Commissioner did. The NLRC also found
meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at that the company had complied with the procedural
requirements of a valid lockout. The Company, in
least twenty-‐four (24) hours before such meetings as
resorting to a lockout, wanted to obtain industrial
well as the results of the voting at least seven (7) days peace, which seemed unobtainable as long as the
before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the dismissed employees obstructively formed part of its
cooling-‐off period provided in this Rule. operation. Thus, the Company incurred no liability as
to the lockout. However, the company should be
Section 11. Declaration of strike or lockout. -‐ Should the penalized for its failure to fully comply with the
dispute remain unsettled after the lapse of the return-‐to-‐work order by refusing to reinstate the 36
requisite number of days from the filing of the notice supervisors.
of strike or lockout and of the results of the election
required in the preceding section, the labor union may
F. Effect of Illegal Lockout
strike or the employer may lock out its workers. The
regional branch of the Board shall continue mediating Art. 264(a) par. 3, 1st sentence
and conciliating.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated
as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be
Philtread v. NLRC entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.

Summary: Labor Injunction

A. Definition and Nature (as explained in PAL v NLRC)

• Injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one’s substantive rights or interest.
• It is not a cause of action in itself; but a mere provisional remedy adjunct to a main suit, a special equitable
relief granted only in cases where there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law.

B. General Rule – Prohibition
• The general rule is that injunction is prohibited (Art. 254).
• As seen in Art. 211(a), it is the State’s policy to promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining
and negotiations. Injunctions and restraining orders are generally frowned upon (Dinio v Laguesma).

C. Exceptions – When Allowed
88


• Art. 218(e) empowers the NLRC to enjoin any actual/threatened prohibited/unlawful act OR to require the
performance of a particular act in cases wherein if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party.
o Note that the unlawful acts spoken of here are found in Art. 264.
• The requirements for such issuance are:
o Complaint made under oath
o Hearing of the testimony of witnesses with opportunity for cross examination in support of the complaint
 Held after due and personal notice to (1) all known persons against whom relief is sought, (2) the Chief
Executive, and (3) other public officials charged with the duty to protect the complainant’s property.
o Testimony in opposition to the complaint (if offered)
o A finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect:
1. The prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed OR will be continued,
unless restrained;
2. That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow;
3. Denial of relief will result to greater injury;
4. Complainant has no adequate remedy;
5. The public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to
furnish adequate protection.

 HOWEVER, if a complainant shall also allege that, unless there issue a TRO or temporary injunction without
notice (ex-‐parte) a substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will be unavoidable, such TRO
may be issued:
o Upon testimony under oath
o Upon condition that complainant first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount fixed by the
Commission (sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any damages in case of erroneous issuance)
o If the allegation is sustained (upon hearing and after notice), it can justify the Commission’s issuance of such
temporary injunction
o Effective no longer than 20 days; void after 20
o See: Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC

• Note that the CIR is generally not allowed to grant injunctive relief.
o Exception:
 When a labor dispute arises in an industry indispensible to the national interest; and
 Such is certified to the CIR by the President.
 HOWEVER, in such a case the enjoinment is not on the strike itself, but only on unlawful acts.
 (As clarified in Caltex Managers and Supervisors Assoc. v CIR.)

D. Issuing Agency

1. NLRC; Labor Arbiter
o Hearing, etc. relating to injunctions may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters (Art.
218(e))

2. Procedural Requirements and Rules for the Issuance of Injunctions
o Art. 218 provides the procedural and substantive requirements which must strictly be complied with before
any injunction can issue (Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete v NLRC).
o The reception of evidence for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the NLRC to any
Labor Arbiter, who shall conduct hearings and submit thereafter his recommendation (Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa v NLRC).

3. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
o Art. 218 is explicit in that such TROs are only valid for a maximum of 20 days.

89


XI. Labor Injunction
A. Definition and Nature
Philippine Airlines v NLRC (1998)

FACTS: 2 PAL flight stewards were dismissed for their
Art. 218(e). Powers of the Commission. -‐ The
alleged involvement in currency smuggling. They filed
with the NLRC a petition for injunction, praying that a Commission shall have the power and authority:
TRO be issued prohibiting PAL from effecting the
dismissal them or to reinstate them temporarily while (e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened
a hearing on the propriety of the issuance of a writ of commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or
preliminary injunction is being undertaken. to require the performance of a particular act in any
HELD: The petition for injunction filed before the labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed
NLRC was, in reality, an action for illegal dismissal. As forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to
such, the petition should have been filed with the any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of
Labor Arbiter, who has original and exclusive such party: Provided, That no temporary or
jurisdiction to hear and decide such cases. Injunction permanent injunction in any case involving or growing
is a preservative remedy for the protection of one’s
out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be
substantive rights or interest. It is not a cause of action
in itself, but a mere provisional remedy adjunct to a issued except after hearing the testimony of witnesses,
main suit-‐ a special equitable relief granted only in with opportunity for cross-‐examination, in support of
cases where there is no plain, adequate and complete the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and
remedy at law. In labor cases, Art. 218 empowers the testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only
NLRC to enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened after a finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect:
commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or
to require the performance of a particular act which, if (1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been
not restrained or performed, may cause grave or threatened and will be committed and will be
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual
continued unless restrained, but no injunction or
any decision in favor of such party.
temporary restraining order shall be issued on
B. General Rule – Prohibition account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act,
except against the person or persons, association or
Art. 254. Injunction prohibited. – No temporary or organization making the threat or committing the
permanent injunction or restraining order in any case prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or
involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;
issued by any court or other entity, except as
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to
otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this
complainant’s property will follow;
Code. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 227,
June 1, 1982). (3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater
injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial
of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the
granting of relief;
Art. 211(a). Declaration of Policy. -‐ It is the policy of
the State: (4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law;
and
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free
collective bargaining and negotiations, including (5) That the public officers charged with the duty to
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as protect complainant’s property are unable or
modes of settling labor or industrial disputes; unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
Such hearing shall be held after due and personal

notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the
90


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 Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule XXII, Sec. 14
which the unlawful acts have been threatened or
committed, charged with the duty to protect Injunctions. -‐ No court or entity shall enjoin any
complainant’s property: Provided, however, that if a picketing, strike or lockout, except as provided in
complainant shall also allege that, unless a temporary Articles 218 and 263 of the Labor Code.
restraining order shall be issued without notice, a
The Commission shall have the power to issue
substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s
temporary restraining orders in such cases but only
property will be unavoidable, such a temporary
after due notice and hearing and in accordance with its
restraining order may be issued upon testimony under
rules. The reception of evidence for the application of
oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission
a writ of injunction may be delegated by the
in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after
Commission to any Labor Arbiter who shall submit his
notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be
recommendations to the Commission for its
effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall
consideration and resolution.
become void at the expiration of said twenty (20)
days. No such temporary restraining order or Any ex parte restraining order issued by the
temporary injunction shall be issued except on Commission, or its chairman or Vice-‐Chairman where
condition that complainant shall first file an the Commission is not in session and as prescribed by
undertaking with adequate security in an amount to its rules, shall be valid for a period not exceeding
be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense twenty (20) days.
those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage caused
by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such San Miguel Corp. v NLRC
order or injunction, including all reasonable costs,
together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and expense FACTS: The Union, through 2 of its filed 2 separate
notices of strike. The NCMB found that they were
of defense against the order or against the granting of
based on non-‐strikeable issues, and converted the
any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding notices into preventive mediation. Nonetheless, the
and subsequently denied by the Commission. Union went on strike. SMC filed a petition for
injunction with prayer for the issuance of TRO. SMC &
The undertaking herein mentioned shall be the Union agreed to lift the picket lines in exchange of
understood to constitute an agreement entered into by good faith talks. The Union later distributed flyers
the complainant and the surety upon which an order declaring that they could strike at anytime. The NLRC
may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding let the TRO it granted lapse. It denied the petition for
injunction.
against said complainant and surety, upon a hearing to
assess damages, of which hearing, complainant and HELD: Petition for injunction should have been
surety shall have reasonable notice, the said granted, in order to restrain the threat of an unlawful
complainant and surety submitting themselves to the strike (pursuant to Art. 254 in relation to Art. 218(e)
and Art. 264 of the Labor Code). Also, the infringement
jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. But
of the CBA provisions on grievance and arbitration
nothing herein contained shall deprive any party further justified the injunction.
having a claim or cause of action under or upon such
undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary
remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided, further,
Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Assoc. v
That the reception of evidence for the application of a
CIR, supra
writ of injunction may be delegated by the
Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall HELD: The CIR cannot validly enjoin strikes. The CIR is
conduct such hearings in such places as he may virtually prohibited from issuing injunctive relief
arising from labor disputes (in order to give labor a
determine to be accessible to the parties and their
comparable bargaining power with capital). The
witnesses and shall submit thereafter his exception is when a labor dispute arises in an industry
recommendation to the Commission. (As amended by indispensible to the national interest and such dispute
Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989) is certified by the President to the CIR (pursuant to
91


Sec. 9(d) of RA875 and Social Security Employees Assoc. (c) No employer shall use or employ any strike-‐
v Hon. Soriano). However, in this exception, the
breaker, nor shall any person be employed as a strike-‐
purpose of the injunction is not to enjoin the strike
breaker.
itself, but only unlawful activities.
(d) No public official or employee, including officers
C. Exceptions – When Allowed
and personnel of the New Armed Forces of the
Philippines or the Integrated National Police, or armed
person, shall bring in, introduce or escort in any
work in place of the strikers. The police force shall
Art. 218(e), supra p. 90
keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or
other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That
nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any
public officer from taking any measure necessary to
Art. 264. Prohibited activities. –
maintain peace and order, protect life and property,
(a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a and/or enforce the law and legal order. (As amended
strike or lockout without first having bargained by EO No. 111, December 24, 1986)
collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or
(e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any
without first having filed the notice required in the
the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s
premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public
to the Ministry.
thoroughfares. (As amended by BP Bilang 227, June 1,
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption 1982)
of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after
certification or submission of the dispute to D. Issuing Agency
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the
1. National Labor Relations Commission; Labor
pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the
Arbiter
strike or lockout.
Any worker whose employment has been terminated
as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v NLRC, infra
entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any HELD: Art. 218 expressly confers upon the NLRC the
union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal power to enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened
strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly prohibited or unlawful acts in a labor dispute which
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a would otherwise cause grave or irreparable damage to
strike may be declared to have lost his employment a party or render ineffectual any favorable decision.
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 2. Procedural Requirements and Rules for the
replacement had been hired by the employer during Issuance of Labor Injunctions
such lawful strike. Art. 218(e), supra p. 90
(b) No person shall obstruct, impede, or interfere with,

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v NLRC
by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation,
any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor FACTS: Since according to the Company, its complaint
yielded no relief, it filed another complaint against the
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-‐
Union, this time directly with the NLRC to enjoin and
organization or collective bargaining, or shall aid or restrain the work slowdown and for damages with
abet such obstruction or interference. prayer for the issuance of a cease and desist and TRO.
92


NLRC issued a TRO ex parte against the Union. FACTS:, The election of officers of the Union was
HELD: Generally, such restraining orders or scheduled. PFR, headed by Dinio, filed with the BLR a
injunctions do not issue ex parte, but only after petition for injunction with prayer for issuance of TRO,
compliance with certain requisites enumerated in the which the Med-‐Arbiter granted a day before the
provision. However, a TRO may be issued ex parte election. After the lapse of the TRO, the Union Comelec
under the following conditions: (a) when unless a TRO proceeded with the election, wherein Dinio lost. PFR
is issued, a substantial/irreparable injury to then filed another petition to nullify the result of said
complainant’s property is unavoidable; (b) testimony elections, which the Med-‐Arbiter also granted. Their
under oath sufficient to justify the NLRC in issuing a Comelec filed a MR, which the DOLE Undersecretary
TRO; (c) the complainant files an undertaking with granted, overturning the Med-‐Arbiter.
adequate security sufficient to recompense those HELD: Injunctions or restraining orders are frowned
enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage cause by the upon as a matter of labor relations policy. The right
improvident/erroneous issuance of such must be clear, the injury impending or threatened, so
order/injunction; and (d) the TRO shall be effective for as to be averted only by the protecting preventive
no longer than 20 days. The reception of evidence for process of injunction. The issuance of a TRO is
the application of a writ of injunction may be addressed to the sound discretion of the Med-‐Arbiter,
delegated by the NLRC to any Labor Arbiter, who shall and should be exercised based upon the grounds and
conduct hearings and submit thereafter his in the manner provided by law, i.e. instances where
recommendation. the complainant will suffer “grave or irreparable
damages”. Such is not the case here, wherein the act
complained of may not be said to cause “grave or
irreparable damage” to the complainant. Also, there
Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete v NLRC was another [administrative] remedy available
FACTS: The Union held a strike. The Company filed a (protest).
petition for injunction, but the Union was not Art. 218 explicitly states that TROs issued in labor
furnished a copy. The NLRC issued a TRO to enjoin the disputes also have a lifetime of only 20 days, so there
strike, and the Union was again not furnished a copy of is no sense in saying that the 20-‐day rule should not
the decision. Union filed for petition for injunction to apply.
enjoin the company from asking the aid of
police/military, while the company filed for immediate
issuance of preliminary injunction, alleging that the
Union was still striking. The NLRC issued the
preliminary injunction in favor of the company.
HELD: The NLRC failed to comply with the letter and
spirit of Art. 218 in issuing its order granting the
company’s motion for preliminary injunction. Art. 218
provides the procedural and substantive requirements
which must strictly be complied with before any
injunction can issue. The Union 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 dispute should
be characterized by care and caution, for the law
requires that it be clearly justified by considerations of
extreme necessity. Imprudently issued TROs can
unduly tilt the balance of labor warfare in favor of
capital.
4. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

Dinio v Laguesma
93

Labor 2 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Finals Reviewer (Daway)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor 2 reviewer. C2015. AY2012-­‐2013

Table of Contents

Summary: Collective Bargaining: General Concept Procedure and Issues .................................... 2

2. Nature and Purpose

Kiok Loy v NLRC

2. Labor Code Procedure Art. 260. Grievance Machinery and Voluntary

Caltex Refinery Employees Association v Brillantes

(c) Each employer or concerned labor union shall

Art. 251, supra p. 8

Art. 250(c,d,e), supra p. 9

Art. 252, supra p. 8

P.I. Manufacturing v P.I. Mfg. Supervisors’ and

f. Contract Ambiguity such Collective Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to

be renegotiated not later than three (3) years after its

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

2. Termination disputes; Manila Pavilion Hotel v Henry Delada

c. Cases arising from the interpretation or Halaguena v PAL

Recovery of civil liability in the administrative

Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional right

(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

Art. 249 (a), supra p. 34

General Milling v CA Philippine Steam Navigation Co v Phil Marine

l. Speech, espionage, economic coercion

Maintenance of membership

d) During the conciliation proceedings in the Board,

San Miguel Foods, Inc. v SMC Employees Union

In addition to such penalty, any alien found guilty shall

3. Prosecution and prescriptive period

Recovery of civil liability in the administrative a. Civil remedies

Concept of unfair labor practice and procedure for

c) If made purely on questions of law; and

To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the Quadra v CA

6. Types and Conversion

o Who can file notice:

o Who can file notice

Requisites for Union-­‐busting under Art. 263:

• Sec of Labor may either:

iii. Intra-­‐union/inter-­‐union dispute

i. Any conflict between:

• Effect of non-­‐compliance: strike will be declared illegal.

b. Filing of Notice of Intention

10. Test of Legality

ii. Guidelines and Balancing of Interests

iii. Defenses—Good faith

i. Basis of illegality

ii. Illegal Acts/Prohibited Activities

o When a strike is conducted

iii. Effect of Union Non-­‐registration

iv. Effect of Illegality

v. Effect of Assumption/Certification Order

5. Regulation/Restrictions, Innocent Third Party Rule and Liabilities

• Prohibited acts against picketers:

• Peace officers not allowed

2. Arrest and Detention of Law Violators

o enforce the law and legal order

IX. Union Concerted Activities

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

Lapanday Workers Union v NLRC

Biflex Philippines Inc Labor Union (NAFLU) v Filfex

ii. Compulsory Arbitration, Def.

a. Effort to Bargain

Labor and Employment may promulgate. 1986).

Art. 263 (e), supra

d. Vote Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v CA

Labor 2 reviewer. C2015. AY2012-‐2013

Requisites for Union-‐busting under Art. 263:

iii. Intra-‐union/inter-‐union dispute

• Effect of non-‐compliance: strike will be declared illegal.

iii. Effect of Union Non-‐registration