1. NUWHRAIN v.

NLRC
FACTS
This labor dispute involves the National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants, and Allied
Industries (NUWHRAIN) — The Peninsula Manila Chapter (the Junta), the NUWHRAIN — The
Peninsula Manila Rank and File Chapter (the Union), and the private respondent, The Peninsula
Manila Hotel. The dispute centers around allegations of irregularities in the signing of a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in 1991, which led the Union to file a notice of strike due
to a deadlock. Tensions escalated when some Union members demanded the resignation of
their officers, accusing them of neglect and abuse. This led to the formation of the Junta, which
subsequently conducted elections and elected new officers, but the Hotel and the Union's
national office refused to recognize the new leadership.
The Junta filed two notices of strike, citing unfair labor practices (ULP) and management
interference, but both were dismissed by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB). Despite the dismissal, the Junta went ahead with a wildcat strike in October 1993. The
Hotel, in response, filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and sought the dismissal of the
involved employees. The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), which ruled that the strike was illegal as it was not based on valid grounds. The NLRC
upheld the dismissal of 15 Junta officers but remanded the case concerning the 153 members
to the labor arbiter for further proceedings. The Junta appealed, arguing that the strike was
justified based on their belief in ULP acts, leading to a petition to set aside the NLRC's decision.
ISSUE
WON the ground relied upon by petitioner is a valid ground to held a strike
RULING
NO, The Court upheld the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) ruling that the wildcat
strike held by the Junta in October 1993 was illegal. While strikes based on a belief in unfair
labor practices (ULP) can be legal if the union acts in good faith, the Court found that the
circumstances in this case did not warrant such a belief. The dismissal of Coronel, which the
Junta claimed triggered the strike, was deemed a legitimate exercise of management
prerogative and not an act of ULP. The petitioners should have pursued alternative remedies,
such as filing for illegal dismissal or submitting the issue to the grievance machinery, instead of
resorting to an unlawful strike.
The Court further emphasized that the alleged acts of discrimination by the Hotel, which the
petitioners argued justified the strike, were not valid grounds for a strike, as the NCMB had
already dismissed the claims. The petitioners' refusal to abide by the NCMB’s prohibition to
strike demonstrated bad faith. Therefore, the Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision to dismiss the
15 officers of the Junta who participated in the illegal strike. The case regarding the 153 other
members was remanded to the labor arbiter for further proceedings. The petition was dismissed
for lack of grave abuse of discretion, and the NLRC’s decision was upheld.
4. ALPAP v. CIR

FACTS

In L-33705, the Felix Gaston-led group of the Air Line Pilots Association of the Philippines
(ALPAP) challenges the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for deciding which faction—Gaston
or Ben Hur Gomez—rightfully represents the pilots and is entitled to the union's funds and
office. They argue the CIR lacks jurisdiction over internal union leadership disputes.

In L-35206, 127 pilots and ALPAP (Gaston) argue that the CIR wrongfully suspended their
petitions for reinstatement, retirement, or separation pay from Philippine Airlines (PAL) while the
leadership dispute (L-33705) is pending.

The conflict arose when ALPAP members, divided into two factions (Gaston and Gomez),
resigned or retired en masse from PAL in protest. The CIR ruled in favor of the Gomez faction
as the legitimate union leadership and stated that those who resigned or retired lost their
employee status and, thus, the right to reinstatement. This led to the suspension of proceedings
related to the petitioners' benefits until the leadership issue was resolved.

ISSUE

Whether the en masse resignation of pilots constitute a strike

RULING

NO, The Supreme Court, in L-35206, ruled that the en masse resignation and retirement of
pilots from Philippine Airlines (PAL) could not be considered a legitimate concerted activity or
strike under the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. 875).

The Court emphasized that a strike is defined as a "temporary stoppage of work" aimed at
resolving an industrial dispute. However, the pilots’ actions were not temporary; they intended to
permanently sever their employment relationship with PAL, thus not fitting the statutory
definition of a strike. The Court further explained that the pilots' mass resignation was a strategic
move to evade the jurisdiction of the industrial court, which had issued return-to-work orders,
and to pressure PAL into meeting their economic demands. This conduct was seen as an
attempt to circumvent judicial authority, and the pilots’ claim of good faith was deemed a later
rationalization, as their actions showed clear bad faith. The Court thus concluded that the
industrial court was correct in recognizing the pilots' actions as a violation of the return-to-work
orders, reinforcing that such acts could not be deemed legitimate strikes under the law.
5. BPLU v. Filflex Industrial & Mfg. Corp.

FACTS

On October 24, 1990, petitioners, officers of two labor unions, organized a work stoppage in
support of a nationwide protest (welga ng bayan) against rising oil prices. They claimed to have
been locked out by respondents when operations resumed, preventing workers from entering.
Petitioners set up tents to monitor the situation and stated that a strike notice was filed on
October 31, 1990. Respondents argued that the work stoppage was illegal due to the failure to
follow required procedures, including filing a strike notice, securing a strike vote, and reporting it
to the Department of Labor and Employment. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal,
resulting in the petitioners' termination. The NLRC reversed this decision, stating no strike
occurred due to the lack of an industrial dispute. However, the Court of Appeals sided with the
Labor Arbiter, ruling that petitioners failed to follow the proper legal procedures for a valid strike
and lacked evidence of a legitimate labor dispute.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners are guilty of holding an illegal strike

RULING

1. YES, Petitioners participated in a work stoppage as part of the welga ng bayan, which
was considered a general strike or extended sympathy strike. This type of strike affects
multiple employers, including those without a labor dispute with their employees.
Employees without a labor dispute who join a welga ng bayan commit an illegal work
stoppage.

Even if the petitioners' participation in the protest was viewed as an exercise of their
constitutional rights (freedom of expression, assembly, and petition), these rights are not
absolute. The rights of employers, such as the right to reasonable returns and business
growth, must also be protected. The petitioners failed to notify their employer or secure
approval to join the protest, making their work stoppage unlawful and beyond legal
protection.

2. NO, Petitioners claimed they were refused entry to work the following day, which they
alleged was a punishment for their participation, thus constituting an illegal lockout.
However, the petitioners did not file a complaint or protest, which weakened their claim,
as typically, a locked-out union would immediately seek legal action.

Even if the petitioners had complied with legal strike formalities, their actions would still
be deemed illegal because they obstructed the free ingress and egress to the company
premises, violating Article 264(e) of the Labor Code. The NLRC also noted that
petitioners physically blocked access to customers, supplies, and non-striking
employees. The legality of a strike is not only determined by legal formalities but also by
the means used during the strike. Since the petitioners were union officers who
knowingly participated in an illegal strike and engaged in illegal acts, they could be
dismissed from employment under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The Court affirmed
that employers have the option to terminate union officers who participate in an illegal
strike. The petition was therefore denied.
6. Sukhothai Cuisine & Restaurant v. CA

FACTS

A majority of employees at the petitioner’s restaurant formed a union, PLAC Local 460
Sukhothai Restaurant Chapter (Union), and affiliated with the Philippine Labor Alliance Council
(PLAC). The Union later filed a Notice of Strike alleging unfair labor practices, including
harassment, fault-finding, and union busting. A conciliation meeting led to an agreement
preventing any employee terminations during the ongoing case. A Strike Vote was held, and the
results were submitted to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board.

The dispute escalated when the Union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after the petitioner
dismissed union member Eugene Lucente, and later terminated union member Jose Lanorias.
The Union then staged a "wildcat strike," which was followed by a formal strike. This led the
petitioner to file a complaint for an illegal strike. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the strike was
illegal, as it was not supported by a valid Notice of Strike and Strike Vote, and cited actions such
as obstructing ingress and egress. The Union appealed, and the NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiter’s decision, ruling that the petitioner had violated the Submission Agreement and
engaged in union busting, justifying the strike. The NLRC also held that the original Notice of
Strike and Strike Vote were applicable to the strike, and the Union could act immediately due to
the ongoing unfair labor practices.

The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the NLRC’s decision was upheld by
the Court of Appeals. The petitioner now seeks to appeal the decision, raising issues regarding
the legality of the strike and whether the employees involved in the strike were validly
terminated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent strike was valid because it was based on a Notice of Strike and Strike
Vote from December 1998 and complied with the 15-day cooling-off period under the Labor
Code. They claimed the strike vote remained valid for the duration of the dispute, as per Article
263(f).

RULING

NO, The Court ruled that the strike was illegal because it occurred while voluntary arbitration
was ongoing, addressing the same issues, such as unfair labor practices and union busting.
Article 264 of the Labor Code prohibits strikes during arbitration proceedings. The court also
found that the December 1998 Notice of Strike and Strike Vote could not apply to the June
1999 strike because the issues had evolved with the arbitration process, and the respondents
should have pursued legal remedies through arbitration, not a wildcat strike.

Therefore, the strike illegal and upheld the termination of the respondents' employment for
engaging in unlawful actions.
11. Philippine Steam Navigation vs. Phil Marine Officers Guild

FACTS

Philippine Steam Navigation Co., Inc. (PHILSTEAM), a domestic shipping company, had 16
vessels and 128 officers. The Philippine Marine Officers Guild (PMOG), a labor union,
represented some of PHILSTEAM's officers, while the Cebu Seamen's Association (CSA) also
represented others. PMOG sent PHILSTEAM a set of demands for collective bargaining, but
PHILSTEAM responded by requiring proof of majority representation before considering
PMOG's requests, which led to a dispute. PMOG then filed a notice of strike, citing
PHILSTEAM's refusal to bargain and alleged unfair labor practices. Despite several
conferences, no agreement was reached, and PHILSTEAM recognized CSA as the majority
union, signing a collective bargaining agreement with them. That same day, PMOG declared a
strike. The strike escalated with around 46 officers participating, and PHILSTEAM failed to
reach a settlement despite further attempts.

The President of the Philippines certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR).
Several cases were filed, including one by PHILSTEAM against PMOG for unfair labor
practices. The CIR ruled that PHILSTEAM had interfered with employees' rights to organize,
and that PMOG's strike was justified. PHILSTEAM was ordered to cease its coercive actions,
reinstate the striking workers without back wages, and recognize PMOG's right to represent its
employees. PHILSTEAM appealed, arguing that it did not commit unfair labor practices and that
PMOG's strike was illegal. However, the CIR's decision was upheld, and PHILSTEAM’s motion
for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

WON the strike by PMOG was lawful for lawful purpose

RULING

YES, PHILSTEAM argued that PMOG's strike was illegal, claiming it was intended to force
PHILSTEAM into collective bargaining despite PMOG being a minority union. However, the
Court found that there was no evidence to show which union—PMOG or CSA—represented the
majority of PHILSTEAM's employees, rendering the PHILSTEAM-CSA collective bargaining
agreement void.

The Court also clarified that PMOG's strike was in response to PHILSTEAM's unfair labor
practices, not an attempt to disrupt the CSA agreement. PMOG filed its strike notice before the
CSA agreement was finalized, and the strike was prompted by PHILSTEAM's interference with
employees' rights to organize.

The Court concluded that PMOG's strike was lawful and justified, and that the striking
employees were entitled to reinstatement, as their actions were a direct result of PHILSTEAM's
unfair labor practices. Even though PHILSTEAM had hired replacements, the employees were
still entitled to reinstatement unless they had found equivalent employment. The Court affirmed
that reinstatement was a right of the strikers, regardless of whether the strike had a significant
impact on PHILSTEAM's operations or whether the employees offered to return to work without
conditions.
15. International Pharmaceuticals v. Secretary of Labor

FACTS

In 1989, a labor dispute arose between International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Company) and the
Associated Labor Union (Union) following a deadlock in collective bargaining. The Union went
on strike after conciliation efforts failed, leading to several related cases being filed with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB). These cases included the Company’s petition for injunction against the Union’s
picketing, a complaint by the Union for unfair labor practices, and the Company’s petition to
declare the strike illegal. The Secretary of Labor invoked Article 263(g) of the Labor Code,
assuming jurisdiction over the dispute due to its impact on a national interest industry
(pharmaceuticals), and directed the workers to return to work within 24 hours.

Subsequently, the Union requested the consolidation of the three NLRC cases with the NCMB
case, which the Secretary granted. The Company contested this, arguing that the labor arbiters
held exclusive jurisdiction over the cases and that Article 263(g) applied only to the bargaining
deadlock and contempt issues, not to the broader labor disputes. The Secretary defended his
actions, citing the need to address all related issues to prevent conflicting decisions and
expedite resolution. The case centered on the interpretation of Article 217, which grants labor
arbiters jurisdiction over unfair labor practices and strike legality, and Article 263(g), which
allows the Secretary to assume jurisdiction in industries vital to national interest.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary’s consolidation and jurisdiction assumption were proper.

RULING

YES, the Court upheld the Secretary of Labor’s authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor
dispute involving International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Company) and the Associated Labor
Union (Union), including related cases typically under the labor arbiter’s jurisdiction.

The Secretary was granted authority under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code to assume
jurisdiction over disputes in industries essential to national interest, such as the pharmaceutical
industry. This jurisdiction extends not only to the primary labor dispute but also to all related
issues, including cases that would otherwise fall under the labor arbiter's exclusive jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that the Secretary's actions were consistent with the objectives of Article
263(g) and aimed at resolving the dispute in a unified and efficient manner, preventing
conflicting decisions from separate authorities.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Company’s petition, reinforcing the principle that labor
laws should be interpreted in favor of workers.
16. St. Scholastic College v. Torres

FACTS

The dispute began when the Union, after a deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations with
St. Scholastica’s College, filed a notice of strike. The Secretary then assumed jurisdiction over
the dispute and issued a return-to-work order, which the Union contested. Despite further efforts
for conciliation, the Union failed to comply with the return-to-work order, and the College
terminated the striking employees. The Union subsequently filed a complaint for enforcement of
the return-to-work order, which led to the Secretary issuing an order directing the reinstatement
of the striking members, except for the Union officers who were held responsible for violating
the return-to-work order.

The College filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the Secretary’s decision to reinstate the
striking employees. The College argued that the employees should not be reinstated, while the
Union sought the dismissal of the charges against its officers. The Secretary’s order to reinstate
the striking members was upheld, but the Union officers were held accountable for their
defiance of the return-to-work orders. Both parties sought partial reconsideration, which was
denied by the Secretary, leading to the present petition for certiorari before the Court.

ISSUE

Whether the academic sector is deemed essential to national interest to vest Labor Secretary to
assume jurisdiction

RULING

YES, the Court affirmed the Secretary’s authority under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, which
grants the Secretary jurisdiction over disputes that could lead to strikes in industries
indispensable to national interest. The Court emphasized that the Secretary's jurisdiction
includes not only the primary labor dispute but also related issues such as terminations resulting
from strike-related actions.

The Court clarified that in cases where the Secretary assumes jurisdiction, his orders, including
return-to-work orders, must be complied with immediately, even if contested. Failure to comply
with such orders is considered an illegal act and can lead to the loss of employment status, as
provided under Article 264 and Section 6 of Rule IX of the NLRC’s New Rules of Procedure.

Thus, the Court concluded that the Secretary had not exceeded his authority, as the dispute
involved an industry (the academic sector) deemed essential to national interest.