Club Filipino v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Club Filipino, Inc. (the company) and its president, petitioner Atty. Roberto F. de Leon, were involved in a labor dispute with respondents, who were former officers and members of the Club Filipino Employees Association (the union). The dispute arose from the company's alleged failure to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) after the previous one expired on May 31, 2000. Despite the union's repeated demands for negotiation, the company cited various reasons, including lack of quorum and illness of its negotiating panel chairman, for its inability to engage in bargaining. The union's attempt to compel negotiations through preventive mediation with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) proved unsuccessful, leading to a declaration of deadlock on April 5, 2001. 2. Procedural History: Following the declaration of a bargaining deadlock, the union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001. The company subsequently submitted its economic counter-proposals on April 22 and May 11, 2001. After a strike vote supervised by the Department of Labor and Employment, the union staged a strike on May 26, 2001, citing the bargaining deadlock. In response, the company filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on May 31, 2001, seeking to declare the strike illegal and praying for the separation of union officers involved. The labor arbiter declared the strike procedurally infirm and illegal, ordering the termination of union officers but granting them separation pay. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA, however, set aside the rulings of the labor arbiter and NLRC concerning respondents Sualog, Calida, De Guzman, and Arinto, ordering their reinstatement with full backwages and separation pay, while dismissing the petition for Laureano Fegalquin, Benjamin Bautista, and Carlito Precentacion. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Club Filipino, Inc. and Atty. Roberto F. de Leon filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision. The core issue raised was whether the strike staged by the respondents on May 26, 2001, was legal. Petitioners argued that the strike was illegal due to the union's failure to attach the company's counter-proposal to its notice of strike, a requirement under Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. The Supreme Court, in its resolution, denied the petition, ruling that the strike was legal. The Court found that attaching the counter-proposal was not practicable as none existed at the time the notice of strike was filed, and that the law does not require the impossible. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the strike were deemed illegal, the automatic dismissal of union officers was not warranted without proof of their knowing participation in illegal acts during the strike.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the strike staged by respondents on May 26, 2001, was legal. Whether or not the union officers were automatically dismissed from service due to the alleged illegal strike.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the affirmative, holding that the strike was legal. The petition was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of the strike: The Court held that the strike was not illegal due to the union's failure to attach the company's counter-proposal to the notice of strike. The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code require that the notice of strike, in cases of bargaining deadlocks, shall, "as far as practicable," be accompanied by the written proposals of the union, the counter-proposals of the employer, and proof of a request for a conference. In this case, the union could not attach the company's counter-proposal because it did not exist at the time the notice of strike was filed. The company only submitted its counter-proposal two weeks after the notice of strike and completed it three weeks thereafter, almost a year after the CBA expired. The Court emphasized that the law does not exact compliance with the impossible (Nemo tenetur ad impossibile), and the phrase "as far as practicable" acknowledges situations where strict compliance is not feasible. Therefore, the union's omission was justified, and the notice of strike was not defective. On the automatic dismissal of union officers: The Court found that the labor arbiter erred in declaring that the respondents, as union officers, automatically severed their employment due to the alleged illegal strike. Firstly, the Court established that the strike was not illegal. Secondly, even assuming arguendo that the strike was illegal, the law clearly states that any union officer who "knowingly" participates in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. The use of the adverb "knowingly" signifies that knowledge is a condition sine qua non for dismissal. The Court noted that the labor arbiter's ruling lacked any discussion on how the respondents, as union officers, "knowingly" participated in the alleged illegal strike. Thus, the automatic dismissal had no legal basis.
Main Doctrine
A strike is not illegal for failure to attach the employer's counter-proposal to the notice of strike if such counter-proposal was not yet in existence at the time of filing, as compliance with the requirement is impossible in such a scenario. Furthermore, the dismissal of union officers for participating in an illegal strike requires proof of their 'knowing participation'.