**Cases

Digested After Midterms**

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE HELD
1. Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa (IBM) v • IBM representing 4500 employees of WON the strike is illegal? Yes • The strike invoking the issue of wage
NLRC SMC working at various plants, offices distortion is illegal.
and warehouses in NCR presented to the • The legality of these activities depends on
company a demand for correction of the the legality of the purposes sought to be
significant distortion in the workers’ attained.
wages pursuant to the Wage • These joint or coordinated activities may be
Rationalization Act. forbidden or restricted by law or contract.
• Demand unheeded by company hence • The legislative intent that solution of
the union members refused to render the problem of wage distortions shall be
overtime services until the distortion has sought by voluntary negotiation
been corrected by SMC. or arbitration, and not by strikes,
• It appears that the employees working lockouts, or other concerted activities of
hours/schedule has been freely observed the employees or management, is made
by the employees for the past 5 years clear in the rules implementing RA 6727
and due to the abandonment of the issued by the Secretary of Labor and
longstanding schedule of work and Employment pursuant to the authority
reversion to the eight-hour shift granted by Section 13 of the Act. Section
substantial losses were incurred by SMC. 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules,
after reiterating the policy that wage
distortions be first settled voluntarily by the
parties and eventually by compulsory
arbitration, declares that, “Any issue
involving wage distortion shall not be a
ground for a strike/lockout.”

2. Lapanday Workers Union v NLRC • Lapanday Agricultural and Development WON the strike is illegal? Yes • The haste in holding the strike prevented
Corporation (LADECO) and Cadeco the DOLE from verifying whether it carried
Argo Development Phils Inc. are sister the approval of the majority of the union
companies engaged in the production of members.
bananas in Davao • Hence, there was no grave abuse of
• They agreed to (CBA) covering the discretion committed.
period from December 5, 1985 to • The applicable laws are Articles 263 and
November 30, 1988 with Lapanday 264 of the Labor Code
Workers’ Union (Union). • Any union officer who knowingly
• Said union is the duly certified participates in an illegal strike and any
bargaining agent of the rank and file worker or union officer who knowingly
employees and is affiliated with the KMU- participates in the commission of illegal
ANGLO. acts during a strike may be declared to
• City Mayor Duterte intervened but the have lost his employment
dialogues proved fruitless as sister status: Provided that mere participation of a
companies refused to withdraw the cases worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute
earlier filed with the Union. sufficient ground for termination of his
• Thereafter, a strike vote was conducted employment, even if a replacement had
among the members of the Union and been hired by the employer during such
those in favor of the strike won lawful strike.
overwhelming support from the workers.
• The result of the strike vote was then
submitted to the NCMB on October 10,
1988. 2 days later, the Union struck.
• The gunman was later identified as
Eledio Samson, an alleged member of
the new security forces of sister
companies. This incident resulted to:
• most of the members of the Union
refused to report for work
• they did not comply with the “quota
system” adopted by the management to
bolster production output
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
1
 • there were allegations that the Union
instructed the workers to reduce their
production to thirty per cent (30%).

3. Gold City Integrated Port Service • P’s employees stopped working and WON the separation pay and backwages should be • Reinstatement and backwages or, if no
(INPORT) v NLRC gathered in a mass action to express awarded by public respondent NLRC to participants longer feasible, separation pay, can only be
th
their grievances regarding wages, 13 of an illegal strike? granted if sufficient bases exist under the
month and hazard pay. law, particularly after a showing of illegal
• Said employees were all members of the dismissal.
Macajalar Labor Union — Federation of • However, while the union members may
Free Workers (MLU-FFW) with whom thus be entitled under the law to be
petitioner had an existing collective reinstated or to receive separation pay,
bargaining agreement. their expulsion from the union in
• Petitioner was engaged in stevedoring accordance with the collective bargaining
and arrastre services at the port of agreement renders the same impossible.
Cagayan de Oro. • A strike, considered as the most effective
• The strike paralyzed operations at said weapon of labor, is defined as any
port. temporary stoppage of work by the
• The strikers filed individual notices of concerted action of employees as a result
strike (“Kaugalingon nga Declarasyon sa of an industrial or labor dispute.
Pag-Welga”) with the then Ministry of • A labor dispute includes any controversy or
Labor and Employment. matter concerning terms or conditions of
• With the failure of conciliation employment or the association or
conferences between petitioner and the representation of persons in negotiating,
strikers, INPORT filed a complaint before fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging
the Labor Arbiter for Illegal Strike with the terms and conditions of employment,
prayer for a restraining order/preliminary regardless of whether or not the disputants
injunction. stand in the proximate relation of employers
and employees.
• Union members among private
respondents are thus entitled to
reinstatement, there being no just cause for
their dismissal.

4. NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF DUSIT HOTEL • NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko WON the Union is guilty for illegal strike? YES • No labor organization or employer shall
NIKKO CHAPTER v. CA Union filed a notice of strike due to declare a strike or lockout without first
bargaining deadlock in its CBA having bargained collectively in accordance
negotiation with the Hotel. with Title VII of this Book or without first
• A Strike Vote was conducted. having filed the notice required in the
Subsequently, some Union members preceding Article or without the necessary
decided to sport closely cropped hair or strike or lockout vote first having been
cleanly shaven hair. obtained and reported to the Ministry.
• They were prevented to enter the Hotel • No strike or lockout shall be declared after
premises due to violation of Hotel assumption of jurisdiction by the President
Grooming Standards. or the Minister or after certification or
• In view of this, the Union proceeded submission of the dispute to compulsory or
with the strike, which led to the Hotel’s voluntary arbitration or during the pendency
temporary cessation of operation of cases involving the same grounds for the
because of lack of manpower. strike or lockout.
• The Hotel terminated 29 Union officers • Any worker whose employment has been
and 61 members and suspended others. terminated as a consequence of any

LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018

EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
2
 • SOLE assumed jurisdiction and certified unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
the case to NLRC for compulsory reinstatement with full backwages.
arbitration. • Any union officer who knowingly
• NLRC held the strike illegal, participates in an illegal strike and any
• CA affirmed. worker or union officer who knowingly
participates in the 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 termination of his employment,
even if a replacement had been hired by the
employer during such lawful strike. (Art
279(a))

5. Sta. Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employee • The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant WON the strike by petitioner as picketing, is illegal? • The purpose of pickets is said to be a
Union vs Coca Cola Bottlers Phil Employees Union is the sole and means of peaceable persuasion.
exclusive bargaining representative of • The basic elements of a strike are present
the regular daily paid workers and the in this case. They marched to and in front
monthly paid non-commission- of the company’s premises during working
earning employees of the Coca-Cola hours.
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Company) in its • Thus, petitioners engaged in a concerted
Sta. Rosa, Laguna plant. activity which already affected the
• The Union decided to participate in a company’s operations. The mass
mass action organized by the Alyansa in concerted activity constituted a strike.
front of the Company’s premises.
• Thus, the Union officers and members
held a picket along the front perimeter of
the plant on September 21, 1999.
• As a result, all of the 14 personnel of
the Engineering Section of the Company
did not report for work, and 71 production
personnel were also absent.
• Only one of the three bottling lines
operated during the day shift. All
the three lines were operated during the
night shift with cumulative downtime of
(5) hours due to lack of manning,
complement and skills requirement. The
volume of production for the day was
short by 60,000 physical cases versus
budget.

6. CCBPI Postmix Workers v NLRC • After negotiations failed to produce any WON the strike was legal? YES • The strike was illegal for failure to observe
agreement, the exclusive bargaining the mandatory requirements of Articles 264
agent of Coca-Cola decided to file a WON the termination of the employees (union and 265 of the Labor Code.
notice of strike. officers ) valid? • The failure of the union to observe the 7-
• Conciliation hearings were conducted but day strike ban made the strike illegal.
were unavailing. • While the strike vote was conducted around
• The union conducted a strike vote on 7:30 am to 8:45 am and the strike held on
April 14, which shoed that the members April 20 was around 8:30 am, the Civil Code
were in favor of conducting a strike. states that in computing a period, the first
• On April 20, the union staged the strike. day shall be excluded and the last day
• The company filed a petition to declare included.
the strike illegal as it was staged without • hence the failure to observe 7 days.
observing the mandatory seven-day • However, the dismissal of the strikers
strike ban and that it was staged in bad was not valid.
faith. • The employees were mere union members
• The company then fired alleged union and not officers who should not be
officers by virtue of the illegal strike. dismissed unless they knowingly
participate in illegal acts during a strike.
• Although these employees signed the CBA,
nowhere in these documents can it be
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
3
 found that the cited employees signed it as
union officers.
• Their active participation in the negotiations
did not render them union officers.

7. San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC • San Miguel Corporation (SMC), which WON the NLRC is correct? • In the case under consideration, the
allegedly needed to streamline its grounds relied upon by the private
operations due to financial losses shut respondent union are non-strikeable.
down some of its plants and declared 55 • Their grounds appear more illusory than
positions as redundant. real.
• Consequently, the PResp union • The Court held that the violation of the CBA
(SMCEU) filed several grievance cases is chargeable against the private
for the said retrenched employees, respondent union.
praying for the redeployment of the said • The Supreme Court granted the instant
employees to the other divisions of the petition.
company. • SMCEU-PTGWO was directed to complete
• During the grievance proceedings, most the third level of the Grievance Procedure
of the employees were redeployed, while and proceed with the Arbitration
others accepted early retirement. proceedings if necessary.
• As a result, only 17 employees remained
when the parties proceeded to the third
level of the grievance procedure.
• The PResp filed with the NCMB of the
DOLE a notice of strike.
• P SMC moved to dismiss the notice of
strike, but the NCMB failed to act on the
motion.
• SMC filed a complaint with the
respondent NLRC praying for the
dismissal of the notice of strike, and an
order compelling the respondent union to
submit to grievance and arbitration the
issue listed in the notice of strike, and the
recovery of the expenses of litigation.
• R NLRC came out with a minute
resolution dismissing the complaint.
Aggrieved by the resolution, petitioner
found its way to this Court via the present
petition.

8. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. NLRC • Private respondent Ramon Canonicato WON lower court is correct? Petition granted. • Although janitorial services may be
was hired as a janitor by the Bacolod considered directly related to the principal
Janitorial Services (BJS). business of an employer, the Court
• He was assigned at the Coca Cola deemed them unnecessary in the conduct
Bottlers, Inc. considering his familiarity of the employer's principal business.
with its premises, having been a previous • This judicial notice however rests on the
casual employee there. assumption that the independent
• On July 23, 1993, respondent filed with contractor is a legitimate job contractor so
the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal that there can be no doubt as to the
dismissal and underpayment of wages. existence of an employer-employee
• He included BJS therein as a co- relationship between the contractor and
respondent. the worker.
• LArbiter- dismissed the complaint and • It is an altogether different matter when the
ruled that there was employer-employee very existence of an employment
relationship between Canonicato and relationship is in question, as in the case at
Coca Cola. bar.
• NLRC- rejected the decision of the • The Court ruled in Singer Sewing Machine
LArbiter on the ground that the janitorial Company vs. Drilon;
services of Canonicato were found to be • "Art. 280 is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an
employment relationship because it merely
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
4
 necessary in the usual trade of Coca distinguishes between two kinds of
Cola. employees, i.e., regular employees and
• Its motion for reconsideration having casual employees."
been denied, Coca Cola filed this
petition.
9. PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION VS • The CBA between petitioner Philcom WON there was an illegal strike? YES • The Strike was illegal having found that
PHILIPPINE GLOBAL Employees Union and the respondent PEU's officers and members have
COMMUNICATIONS and PHILCOM Philcom Corporation expired. o the committed illegal acts during the strike.
CORPORATION parties started negotiations for the • It must be strictly complied with even during
renewal of their CBA in July 1997 o While the pendency of any petition questioning its
negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed a validity. PEU staged the strike in utter
Notice of Strike with the NCMB disregard of the grievance procedure
• Petitioner perceived unfair labor practice established in the CBA.
committed by the company and • A strike declared on the basis of grievances
bargaining deadlock which have not been submitted to the
• Secretary of Labor: The Union's grievance committee as stipulated in the
Manifestation/Motion to Strike Out CBA of the parties is premature and illegal.
Portions of and Attachments in Philcom's
Position Paper is hereby denied for lack
of merit. The Union's charges of unfair
labor practice against the Company are
dismissed. hereby
• CA- Violations of CBAs, except those
gross in character, are mere grievances
resolvable through the appropriate
grievance machinery or voluntary
arbitration as provided in the CBAs
10. Metrolab Industries v Roldan Confesor • Metrolab Industries represented by PR WON the executive secretaries must be included as • By recognizing the expanded scope of the
Metro Drug Corp. a labor organization part of the bargaining unit of rank and file right to self-organization, the intent of the
representing the petitioners’ employees. employees? NO court was to delimit the types of employees
After the CBA between the parties excluded from the close shop provisions,
expired, negotiations for new CBA ended not from the bargaining unit.
into deadlock. • The executive secretaries of General
• Both parties failed to settle their dispute Manager and the Management Committees
hence the order issued by the Secretary should not only be exempted from the
of Labor and Employment that any strike closed-shop provision but should not be
or acts that might exacerbate the permitted to join in the bargaining unit of the
situation is ceased and ordered the rank and file employees as well as on the
parties to execute a new CBA. Later, the grounds that the executive secretaries are
petitioner moved two lay-off acts to its confidential employees, having access to
rank and file employees and was “vital labor information”.
opposed by the union. Petitioner assailed • Therefore, executive secretaries of
that the move was temporary and petitioners’ General Manager and its
exercise of its management prerogative. Management Committee are permanently
Herein public respondent declared that excluded from the bargaining unit of
the petitioner’s act illegal andissued two petitioner’s rank and file employees.
resolution of cease and desist stating that
the move exacerbate and caused conflict
to the case at bar.

11. PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION V. • Petitioner filed a notice of strike on WON Confesor acted with grave abuse of • Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code
CONFESOR grounds of unfair labor practice, more discretion? have been enacted pursuant to the police
specifically union busting and violation of power of the State, which has been defined
CBA. Private respondent Philtread as the power inherent in a government to
Corporation filed a petition to declare enact laws, within constitutional limits, to
illegal the work slowdowns staged by the promote the order, safety, health, morals
petitioner Union. and general welfare of society.
• NLRC- The slowdowns engaged in by • Said article clearly does not interfere with
respondents are declared illegal and by the workers' right to strike but merely
engaging in such illegal activities, regulates it, when in the exercise of such
respondents whose name appear in right, national interests will be affected. The
Annex "A" of the petition are deemed to rights granted by the Constitution are not
absolute. They are still subject to control

LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018

EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
5
 have lost their employment with and limitation to ensure that they are not
petitioner. exercised arbitrarily.
• Secretary of Labor - assume jurisdiction • The Labor Code vests upon the Secretary
over the labor dispute. Petitioner then of Labor the discretion to determine what
filed an MR which was denied. industries are indispensable to national
interest. Thus, upon the determination of
the Secretary of Labor that such industry is
indispensable to the national interest, it will
assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute
of said industry.

12. Phimco Industries, Inc. v. Brillantes • The case is seeking to set aside the order WON Honorable Acting Secretary acted with grave • SC found the petition impressed with merit.
of then acting Secretary Jose Brillantes abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order and • the Court ruled that the Acting Secretary of
of the Department of Labor and in assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute. Labor clearly erred in assuming jurisdiction
Employment on the ground of grave over the labor dispute because a match
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or factory, though of value, can scarcely be
excess of jurisdiction. considered as an industry indispensable to
• Records show that public respondent the national interest as it cannot be in the
assumed jurisdiction over the labor same category as generation and
dispute between Phimco Industries distribution of energy or those undertaken
Labor Association (PILA) and Phimco by banks, hospitals and export-oriented
Industries, Inc., (PHIMCO) and issued an industries.
order ordering all the striking workers, • In view thereof, the Court granted the
except those who have been handed instant petition and set aside the order of
down termination papers on June 26, the Secretary of Labor.
1995, to return to work within 24 hours
from receipt thereof and for the company
to accept them back under the same
terms and conditions prevailing prior to
the strike.
13. Capitol Medical Center v Trajano • Petitioner, however, challenged the WON Secretary of Labor cannot exercise his powers • The discretion to assume jurisdiction may
union’s legitimacy and refused to bargain under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code without be exercised by the Secretary of
with observing the requirements of due process. Labor and Employment without the
respondent. Subsequently petitioner filed necessity of prior notice or hearing given to
with the (BLR), Department of Labor and any of the
Employment, a petition for cancellation of parties. The rationale for his primary
respondent’s certificate of registration. assumption of jurisdiction can justifiably
• For its part, respondent filed with the rest
(NCMB), National Capital Region, a on his own consideration of the exigency of
notice of strike the situation in relation to the national
• Respondent alleged that petitioner’s interests.
refusal to bargain constitutes unfair labor • The President of the Philippines shall not be
practice. precluded
Despite several conferences and efforts from determining the industries that, in his
of the designated conciliator-mediator, opinion, are indispensable to the national
the parties interest, and from intervening at any time
failed to reach an amicable settlement. and assuming jurisdiction over any such
• Respondent staged a strike. labor
dispute in order to settle or terminate the
same.

14. San Miguel Corp v NLRC • Petitioner sought a permanent injunction WON the SC is correct? Supreme Court held that the NLRC committed grave
to enjoin the respondent's strike. The abuse of discretion when it denied the petition for
NLRC initially issued a temporary injunction. Contrary to the NLRC'S finding, at the time
restraining order. Subsequently, despite the injunction was being sought, there existed a threat
lack of a valid notice of strike and the to revive the unlawful strike. Art. 264 (a) of the Labor
union's failure to observe the CBA Code explicitly states that a declaration of strike without
provisions on grievance and arbitration, first having filed the required notice is a prohibited
the NLRC denied the petition for activity, which may be prevented through an injunction
injunction for lack of factual basis. in accordance with Article 254 of the Labor Code.

15. Complex Employees Association v NRC • A complaint was filed before the labor • The Court ruled that there was a complete
arbiter for unfair labor practice/illegal cessation of the business operations at the

LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018

EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
6
 lockout, money claims for vacation leave, complex not because of the labor dispute.
sick leave, unpaid wages, 13th month It was very clear that Complex had already
pay, damages and attorney's fees. informed the employees that they would be
• Complainants alleged that the sudden closing the Lite-On Line.
pull out of the machinery, equipment and • The closure, therefore, was not motivated
materials from the company premises by the union activities of the employees, but
which resulted to the sudden closure of rather by necessity, since it can no longer
the company was in violation of the engage in the production without the much
Labor Code and existing CBA. needed materials, equipment and
• The labor arbiter rendered a decision machinery.
ordering respondents Complex • Anent the issue of separation pay, the Court
Electronics Corporation, Ionics ruled that notwithstanding the financial
Incorporated and Lawrence Qua, to losses suffered by Complex, such was,
reinstate the 531 employees to their however, not the main reason for its
former position and to pay the closure, hence there was no grave abuse of
complainants the aggregate amount of discretion on the part of the public
P26,949, 891.80. respondent in awarding the employees one
• NLRC- rendered a decision ordering the month for every year of service as
respondent Complex Electronics termination pay.
Corporation to pay the 531 complainants • Accordingly, the assailed decision of the
equivalent to one month pay in lieu of NLRC was affirmed.
notice and separation pay equivalent to
one month pay for every year of service
and a fraction of six months as one whole
year. Respondents Ionics and Lawrence
Qua were ordered excluded as parties
solidarily liable with Complex..

16. San Miguel Corp v NLRC • P SMC sponsored an Innovation WON the Labor Arbiter and the Commission has • The Labor Arbiter and the Commission has
Program which grants cash rewards to all jurisdiction over the money claim filed by private no jurisdiction over the money claim of
“SMC employees who submit to the respondent? NO Vega. The court ruled that the money claim
corporation ideas and suggestions found of private respondent Vega arose out of or
to beneficial to the corporation. in connection with his employment with
• Private Respondent Rustico Vega, who petitioner.
is a mechanic in the Bottling Department • However, it is not enough to bring Vega’s
of the SMC submitted an innovation money claim within the original and
proposal which supposed to eliminate exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. In
certain defects in the quality and taste of the CAB, the undertaking of petitioner SMC
the product “San Miguel Beer Grande.” to grant cash awards to employees could
• Petitioner Corporation did not accept the ripen into an enforceable contractual
said proposal and refused Mr. Vega’s obligation on the part of petitioner SMC
subsequent demands for cash award under certain circumstances.
under the innovation program. Hence, • Hence, the issue whether an enforceable
Vega filed a complaint with the then contract had arisen between SMC and
Ministry of Labor and Employment in Vega, and whether it has been breached,
Cebu. He argued that his proposal had are legal questions that labor legislations
been accepted by the methods analyst cannot resolved because it’s recourse is
and was implemented by the SMC and it the law on contracts.
finally solved the problem of the • Where the claim is to be resolved not by
Corporation in the production of Beer reference to the Labor Code or other labor
Grande. relations statute or a collective bargaining
• Petitioner denied of having approved agreement BUT by the general civil law, the
Vega’s proposal. It stated that said jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the
proposal was turned down for “lack of regular courts of justice and not to the Labor
originality” and the same, even if Arbiter and NLRC.
implemented, could not achieve the
desire result. Further, petitioner
Corporation alleged that theLabor Arbiter
had no jurisdiction.
• The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction because
the claim of Vega is “not a necessary
incident of his employment” and does not
fall under Article 217 of the Labor Code.
LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018
EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
7
 However, in a gesture of compassion and
to show the government’s concern for the
working man, the Labor Arbiter ordered
petitioner to pay Vega P2, 000 as
“financial assistance.” Both parties
assailed said decision of the Labor
Arbiter.

LABOR 2| Atty. Calleja| 2018

EMA.KEREN.LEA| For Finals
8