Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner union and respondent company executed a five-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA). After three years, negotiations for the economic provisions stalled, leading to a collective bargaining deadlock. Petitioner filed a notice of strike. Respondent filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction. The Secretary assumed jurisdiction and enjoined any strike or lockout. Subsequently, petitioner filed a second notice of strike alleging unfair labor practices by respondent, including illegal mass dismissal, discrimination, coercion, and union busting. Petitioner conducted a strike vote, and 167 members did not report for work on May 20, 1994, gathering instead at Pier 12, North Harbor, Manila. The Secretary of Labor issued an order directing the striking employees to return to work and certified the dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal strike. Procedural History: The NLRC declared the strike illegal and ruled that union officers who participated could be terminated. The NLRC dismissed the union's complaint against the company. The union's motion for reconsideration was denied. The union filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the NLRC resolutions, holding that the NLRC had jurisdiction, the strike was illegal for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, and the dismissal of officers was in accordance with law. The Petition: The union filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The union argued that the one-day work stoppage was not an illegal strike, that the dismissal of its officers was improper, and that the NLRC lacked jurisdiction to declare the strike illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-day work stoppage on May 20, 1994, constituted an illegal strike. Whether the dismissal of the union officers who participated in the work stoppage was proper. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to declare the strike illegal.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 28, 1999 and November 25, 1999 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegality of the strike: The Court held that the strike staged by petitioner's officers and members on May 20, 1994, was illegal. This was primarily due to the union's failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements outlined in Article 263 (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, as amended. Specifically, the union did not submit the results of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least seven (7) days before the intended strike. The Court emphasized that the cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report are mandatory. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence to substantiate the petitioner's accusation of union busting, stating that it is the union's burden to present substantial evidence for such allegations, which was not met in this case. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the event was merely a "one-day work absence" or "simple act of absenteeism," defining a strike under Article 212 (o) of the Labor Code as a temporary stoppage of work by concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute, finding that the basic elements of a strike were present. On the dismissal of union officers: The Court affirmed the dismissal of the union officers. Citing Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, the Court stated that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost their employment status. Given that the strike was declared illegal for failure to comply with mandatory requirements and the union failed to prove unfair labor practices, the participation of the union officers in the illegal strike forfeited their employment status. The Court distinguished this from ordinary striking workers, who cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike without proof of committing illegal acts during the strike, whereas union officers may be terminated for knowingly participating in an illegal strike. On the jurisdiction of the NLRC: The Court affirmed the NLRC's jurisdiction over the case. Citing International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Court reiterated that when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, this authority necessarily includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. Consequently, when the Secretary certifies the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, the NLRC is empowered to resolve all questions and controversies arising from it, including cases that would otherwise fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
Main Doctrine
A strike is illegal if the union fails to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Article 263 (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifically the submission of the strike vote results to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven (7) days prior to the intended strike. Union officers knowingly participating in an illegal strike may be terminated from employment.