Bisaya Land Transportation v. Court of Industrial Relations
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Philippine Marine Radio Officers' Association (PHILMAROA) presented demands for salary standardization and increases, improved leave benefits, hospitalization, and a closed shop agreement to various shipping companies, including petitioner Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. Subsequently, notice of intention to strike was filed. During the pendency of the dispute before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), two radio operators employed by petitioner abandoned their posts but were later readmitted. 2. Procedural History: The dispute, initially filed with the Department of Labor, was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The petitioner argued that the strike was unlawful due to lack of direct notice and that the reinstatement of the radio operators negated any cause of action. The CIR ruled that the illegality of the strike was waived by the company's acceptance of the returning operators, and while reinstatement and backpay were mooted by the readmission, the union's original demands could still be pursued. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via certiorari from the petitioner, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. The petitioner assigns six errors, primarily arguing that the union lacked a cause of action, lacked the legal capacity to bargain collectively (especially for the specific radio operators in question due to their affiliation with another union), that the strike was illegal, that the presidential certification of the case to the CIR was void, and that the CIR lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that the return of the striking employees waived the original demands and that the union's craft status did not grant it collective bargaining power in this context.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner-union has a cause of action against the Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. Whether a craft union has the right or power to bargain collectively. Whether the PHILMAROA had the right to bargain collectively for radio operators Nadanza and Ouano, who were allegedly affiliated with another local labor union. Whether the strike or abandonment of posts by the radio operators was legal. Whether the certification of the case to the CIR by the President of the Philippines was null and void. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolution appealed from, with costs against the petitioner. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's assignments of error.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of cause of action: The Court held that the return to work and reinstatement of the radio operators did not constitute a waiver of the union's original demands. The strike was merely a means to achieve the union's ends, and their desistance from striking was a personal act of the strikers, not a waiver by the union of its demands. On the right of a craft union to bargain collectively: The Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court that a craft union, such as the one to which the radio operators belonged, is expressly recognized under Section 9(f), paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875) and possesses the right and power to bargain collectively. On the right of PHILMAROA to bargain for Nadanza and Ouano: The Court found no merit in the contention that PHILMAROA could not bargain for the radio operators because they were affiliated with another union. The Court clarified that PHILMAROA acted as the representative of Nadanza and Ouano in their capacity as radio operators, not merely as employees of the company. The law does not prohibit employees from affiliating with both a craft union and an ordinary labor union. On the legality of the strike: Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the strike was illegal for being premature, the Court held that this defense was waived by the Bisaya Land Transportation Company when it voluntarily agreed to reinstate the radio operators. On the validity of the presidential certification: The Court rejected the argument that the presidential certification was void because the strike occurred before the certification. The Court stated that presidential certification is not limited to preventing strikes and lockouts but can be invoked even after a strike has been declared, provided the President believes public interest demands arbitration and conciliation. The practice of the CIR ordering strikers to return to work pending final determination of demands was also deemed not abolished by law. On the jurisdiction of the CIR: The Court found the assignment of error regarding the CIR's jurisdiction to be clearly unfounded and without merit.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, holding that the petitioner's (Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc.) acceptance of the striking radio operators back into employment constituted a waiver of any defense regarding the illegality of the strike. The Court also reiterated that craft unions, as recognized under the Industrial Peace Act, have the right to engage in collective bargaining. Finally, it upheld the validity of the presidential certification of the labor dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations, even though the strike had already occurred, emphasizing that such certification serves the purpose of arbitration and conciliation in matters of public interest.