Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) executed between Grand Boulevard Hotel (then Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) and the Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN). Following the CBA's execution, the hotel dismissed and suspended several union members. This led to the union filing multiple notices of strike, citing illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, CBA violations, and harassment. The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) repeatedly issued status quo ante bellum orders, certifying the disputes to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration and directing parties to maintain the status quo and facilitate return to work. Despite these orders, disputes persisted, including alleged violations of a subsequent CBA and further dismissals and suspensions, culminating in a notice of strike filed by the union on September 27, 1990, and another on November 16, 1990, following the hotel's announcement of a retrenchment program and the termination of employees. 2. Procedural History: The case has a complex procedural history involving multiple labor tribunals and judicial reviews. Initially, the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) issued several status quo ante bellum orders, certifying labor disputes to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The hotel filed a complaint for illegal strike against the union, which the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the hotel, declaring the strike illegal and the officers' termination valid. The NLRC affirmed this decision on appeal. However, the union and its officers filed petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which were remanded to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the NLRC and Labor Arbiter decisions, finding the strike legal and the dismissals unjustified, ordering reinstatement and damages. The hotel sought reconsideration, which the CA denied. This led to the hotel filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which is the current proceeding. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Grand Boulevard Hotel, seeks a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. The hotel argues that the CA erred in its findings of fact regarding unfair labor practices by the petitioner and in concluding that the union's strike was legal, asserting that the CA disregarded mandatory legal requirements for a valid strike. The petitioner contends that the retrenchment program was a necessary management prerogative due to financial difficulties and that the union's strike was illegal due to non-compliance with statutory procedures, including the failure to observe cooling-off periods and the disregard of SOLE assumption/certification orders. The petitioner maintains that the union's claim of good faith does not excuse these procedural violations. The respondents, in turn, argue that the issues involve questions of fact improper for a Rule 45 petition and that the CA correctly found the strike legal and the dismissals unjustified, citing the hotel's unfair labor practices as provocation.
Issue(s)
1. PROCEDURAL: Whether or not the certificate of non-forum shopping is defective and whether or not the petition is insufficient in form for failure of the petitioner to attach relevant pleadings. 2. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether or not the strike staged by the respondent union from November 16 to 29, 1990, is legal. 3. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether or not the dismissals of the private respondents officers of the respondent union as a consequence of the strike are valid.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED. The strike staged by the respondent union was illegal, and the termination of the union officers and members who participated in it was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found the procedural contentions of the respondents to be without merit. Regarding the alleged defective certification of non-forum shopping, the Court held that the resolution of the Board of Directors, which authorized Jose Ma. Nuñez "to cause the filing of the proper legal actions, cases, proceedings in the appropriate court; to represent the Corporation in any capacity in all suits... and empowering him to engage the services of counsel...; and to sign for and verify as well as authenticate such petition, pleadings, documents, record and other papers necessary," was broad enough to authorize the filing of the petition at bar. As for the alleged insufficiency of form due to the petitioner's failure to append all pleadings from the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court clarified that Section 4, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court only requires a legible and duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment or final order/resolution of the court a quo and such material portions of the record as would support the petition, not all prior pleadings. The Court retains the power under Section 7 and 8 of the Rule to require further documents or a complete record if necessary. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the strike staged by the respondent union from November 16 to 29, 1990, was illegal. The Court reiterated that the requisites for a valid strike under Article 263 of the Labor Code—a notice of strike filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) (thirty days for bargaining deadlocks or fifteen days for unfair labor practices), a strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership by secret ballot, and notice given to the DOLE of the voting results at least seven days before the intended strike—are mandatory. Failure to comply with these renders the strike illegal. The respondent union filed its notice of strike on November 16, 1990, and staged a picket on the same day, violating these mandatory periods. Furthermore, a strike undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity and illegal under Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. The SOLE had already issued a status quo ante bellum order on October 31, 1990, certifying the earlier dispute to the NLRC and enjoining any strike or lockout. The Court, citing Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., stressed that such an order automatically results in a return-to-work, and continuing a strike in defiance thereof is prohibited. The union's argument that the November 16, 1990, notice was a mere reiteration of the September 27, 1990, notice, which had complied with requirements, was rejected because the matters in the earlier notice had already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE. On Issue 3: Consequently, the dismissals of the private respondents, who were officers and members of the respondent union, were deemed valid. The Court explicitly rejected the Court of Appeals' (CA) finding that the respondents' belief in good faith that the petitioner was committing unfair labor practices (ULP) cured any defects in the strike. Citing National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, the Supreme Court firmly stated that good faith is not a valid excuse to dispense with the mandatory procedural steps for a lawful strike. While the petitioner may have indeed barred union officers from working and implemented a retrenchment program, these actions did not justify the union's immediate strike without observing the statutory cooling-off periods and other requirements. The Court emphasized that the union should have availed itself of remedies under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) or filed an illegal dismissal case in the office of the Labor Arbiter against the petitioner or by agreement of the parties, submit the case to the grievance machinery of the CBA so that the matter may be subjected to voluntary arbitrary proceedings instead of resorting to an immediate strike, especially since the retrenchment envisaged by the petitioner had yet to take effect. The need for strict adherence to procedural conditions sine qua non for strikes is crucial due to their impact on societal peace, economic progress, and the welfare of the state.
Main Doctrine
A strike undertaken despite the issuance of a status quo ante bellum or certification order from the Secretary of Labor and Employment becomes a prohibited activity and is thus illegal. Failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for a lawful strike, such as notice of strike, strike vote, and notice to the Department of Labor, renders the strike illegal, and the dismissal of employees participating therein is justified.