Club Filipino v. Bautista

Club Filipino v.
Bautista
Facts:
Club Filipino Employees Association (CLUFEA) is a union representing the

employees of Club Filipino, Inc. CLUFEA and Club Filipino, Inc. entered into
previous collective bargaining agreements, the last of which expired on May 31,
2000. Before CLUFEA and Club Filipino, Inc.'s last collective bargaining
agreement expired and within the 60-day freedom period, CLUFEA had made
several demands on Club Filipino, Inc. to negotiate a new agreement. Club
Filipino, Inc., however, replied that its Board of Directors could not muster a
quorum to negotiate with CLUFEA. The union submitted its proposals, but the
company failed to negotiate stating illness of the chairperson and the negotiating
panel.
The Union then filed before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) a request for preventive mediation which ended in a deadlock. CLUFEA
filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock. A
strike vote was conducted under DOLE’s supervision and the majority of the
members voted to strike.
The Company moved to declare the strike illegal. According to Club Filipino, Inc.,
CLUFEA failed to file a Notice of Strike and to conduct a strike vote, in violation
of the legal requirements for staging a strike. Worse, CLUFEA's members
allegedly committed illegal acts while on strike, preventing their co-workers from
entering and leaving Club Filipino, Inc.'s premises and even cutting off Club
Filipino, Inc.'s electricity and water supply on the first day of the strike. Club
Filipino, Inc. prayed that all of CLUFEA's officers who participated in the strike be
declared to have lost their employment pursuant to Article 264 (a) of the Labor
Code.
The LA ruled that the strike was procedurally infirm for CLUFEA's failure to
comply with the procedural requirements for staging a strike when it failed to
state the notice and the unresolved issues in the bargaining negotiation. The
NLRC denied the appeal of the Union.
The Court of Appeals then held that the Labor Arbiter gravely abused his
discretion in declaring CLUFEA's strike illegal. The Court of Appeals ruled that
the requirements under Rule XXII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the Labor Code "[do] not appear to be absolute." Rule XXII, Section 4 only
requires that the proposals and counterproposals be attached to the Notice of
Strike "as far as practicable." Since CLUFEA had already filed a Notice of Strike
when Club Filipino, Inc. submitted its counterproposals, it was not practicable for
CLUFEA to attach Club Filipino, Inc.'s counterproposals to the Notice of Strike.
This court sustained the Court of Appeals' finding that the Labor Arbiter gravely
abused his discretion in ordering the "wholesale dismissal" of CLUFEA's officers.
According to this court, the law requires "'knowledge' [of the illegality of the strike]
as a condition sine qua non before a union officer can be dismissed . . . for
participating in an illegal strike." However, "[n]owhere in the ruling of the labor
arbiter can [there be found] any discussion of how respondents, as union officers,
knowingly participated in the alleged illegal strike. Thus, even assuming . . . that
the strike was illegal, [the] automatic dismissal [of CLUFEA's officers] had no
basis.”
Issue:
What is the liability of the union officers who participated in the strike?
Ruling:
On the other hand, in an action for illegal dismissal, the cause of action is
premised on an employer's alleged dismissal of an employee without a just or
authorized cause as provided under Articles 282, 283, and 284 of the Labor
Code.
There is no res judicata in the present case. Petitioner Club Filipino, Inc.
filed the illegal strike because members of CLUFEA allegedly disrupted petitioner
Club Filipino, Inc.'s business when they staged a strike without complying with
the requirements of the law. For their part, respondents filed the illegal dismissal
case to question the validity of petitioner Club Filipino, Inc.'s retrenchment
program.
Although there is no res judicata, the actions have the same subject
matter. The subject matter of an action is "the matter or thing from which the
dispute has arisen." Both the illegal strike and illegal dismissal cases involve the
dismissal of respondents. In respondents' action for illegal dismissal,
respondents were found to have been dismissed by virtue of a valid
retrenchment program. The NLRC then ordered that they be paid separation pay
based on the parties' collective bargaining agreement. IEHSDA
In petitioner Club Filipino, Inc.'s action for declaration of illegal strike, the Labor
Arbiter's finding that respondents conducted an illegal strike resulted in their
dismissal. Respondents were ordered to receive separation pay "similar in terms
with those offered to the employees affected by the retrenchment program of the
club." The Court of Appeals, however, found that the Labor Arbiter gravely
abused his discretion in declaring the strike illegal. It then reversed the Labor
Arbiter's Decision and awarded some of the respondents full backwages,
benefits, and separation pay.
In petitioner Club Filipino, Inc.'s action for declaration of illegal strike, the Labor
Arbiter's finding that respondents conducted an illegal strike resulted in their
dismissal. Respondents were ordered to receive separation pay "similar in terms
with those offered to the employees affected by the retrenchment program of the
club." The Court of Appeals, however, found that the Labor Arbiter gravely
abused his discretion in declaring the strike illegal. It then reversed the Labor
Arbiter's Decision and awarded some of the respondents full backwages,
benefits, and separation pay.
For those officers who received their quitclaim, in the present case where the
recipients are responsible union officers who have regularly acted in behalf of
their members in the discharge of their union duties and where there is no direct
evidence of coercion or vitiation of consent, we believe we can safely conclude
that the petitioners Bautista and Fegalquin fully knew that they entered into when
they accepted their retirement benefits and when they executed their quitclaims.
The Club (as well as the NLRC) is therefore correct in their position that these
petitioners no longer have any interest that can serve as basis for their
participation in the present petition.
For those who accepted their quitclaim, it shall be deducted from their separation
pay.

Club Filipino v. Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Club Filipino v. Bautista

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Club Filipino v. Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Club Filipino v.

Club Filipino Employees Association (CLUFEA) is a union representing the

You might also like