LABOR 2 CASE DIGEST AND CASE conference held on November 20, 1997, the

DOCTRINES union demanded the holding of a consent

election to which the Hotel interposed no
objection. In the early morning of November
29, 1997, however, the union suddenly went
1. G.R. No. 158075 June 30, on strike. The following day, the National
2006PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant
AND RESORT, INC. (MANILA DIAMOND and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) joined
HOTEL) the strike and openly extended its support to
vs.MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL the union. At about this time, Hotel
EMPLOYEES UNION supervisors Vicente T. Agustin (Agustin) and
Rowena Junio (Rowena) failed to report for
Facts: The union which was registered on work and were, along with another
August 19, 1996 before the Department of supervisors, Mary Grace U. de Leon (Mary
Labor and Employment (DOLE) filed a Grace), seen participating in and supporting
Petition for Certification Election before the the strike.Petitioner thus filed a petition for
DOLE. The DOLE-NCR denied the union's injunction before the National Labor
petition as it failed to comply with legal Relations Commission (NLRC). Mary Grace,
requirements, specifically Section 2, Rule V, who was directed to explain her participation
Book V. Francis Mendoza (Mendoza), one in the strike terminated her services drawing
of the Hotel's outlet cashiers, was her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal
discovered to have failed to remit to the against petitioner. Agustin, who was also
Hotel the amount of P71,692.50. Mendoza terminated, filed a similar complaint against
claimed that after accomplishing his daily the hotel. The NLRC thus issued a
cash remittance report, the union President Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
Jose Leonardo B. Kimpo (Kimpo) also an directing the strikers to immediately "cease
outlet cashier, who signed the same and and desist from obstructing the free ingress
dropped his remittances. Kimpo was not and egress from the Hotel premises”. The
aware of any such procedure.The union service upon the strikers of the TRO
later notified petitioner of its intention to notwithstanding, they refused to dismantle
negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement the tent they put up at the employee's
(CBA) for its members. Acting on the notice entrance to the Hotel. As then DOLE
the Hotel advised the union that since it was Secretary Cresenciano Trajano's attempts to
not certified by the DOLE as the exclusive conciliate the parties failed, he, acting on the
bargaining agent, it could not be recognized union's Petition for Assumption of
as such. The union clarified that it sought to Jurisdiction, issued on April 15, 1998 an
bargain "for its members only," and declared order certifying the dispute to the NLRC for
that "the Hotel's refusal to bargain [would compulsory arbitration, and directing the
prompt] the union to engage in concerted striking officers and members to return to
activities to protect and assert its rights work within 24 hours and the Hotel to accept
under the Labor Code”. The union them back under the same terms and
announced that its executive officers as well conditions prevailing before the strike. On
as its directors decided to go on strike in petitioner's motion for reconsideration, then
view of the management's refusal to bargain DOLE Acting Secretary Jose Español, Jr.,
collectively, and thus called for the taking of by Order of April 30, 1998, modified the April
strike vote. Petitioner thereupon issued a 15, 1998 Order of Secretary Trajano by
Final Reminder and Warning to respondent. directing the Hotel to just reinstate the
The union went on to file a Notice of Strike strikers to its payroll,the NLRC declared that
on September 29, 1997 with the National the strike was illegal and that the union
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). officers and members who were reinstated
Conciliation conferences were immediately to the Hotel's payroll were deemed to have
conducted by the NCMB. In the meantime, lost their employment status. And it
or on or about November 7, 1997, Kimpo dismissed the complaints filed by Mary
filed before the Arbitration Branch a Grace, Agustin, and Rowena as well as the
complaint for ULP against petitioner. In the union's complaint for ULP. The Court finds
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the NLRC, and therefore affirms the ruling of It bears noting that the goal of the DOLE is
the NLRC as follows: geered towards "a single employer wide unit
which is more to the broader and greater
benefit of the employees working force." 1
(1) That the strike is illegal; The philosophy is to avoid fragmentation of
the bargaining unit so as to strengthen the
(2) That the union officers lost their employees’ bargaining power with the
employment status when they formed the management. To veer away from such goal
illegal strike; and would be contrary, inimical and repugnant to
the objectives of a strong and dynamic
(3) That the dismissal of Ms. Mary Grace U. unionism.2
de Leon, Vicente C. Agustinand Rowena
Junio is valid. ART. 264 (e) No person engaged in
picketing shall commit any act of violence,
coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free
ingress to or egress from the employer’s
Case Doctrines:
premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct
public thoroughfares. (Emphasis supplied)
ART. 255. EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATION AND WORKERS’ It is doctrinal that the exercise of the right of
PARTICIPATION IN POLICY AND private sector employees to strike is not
DECISION-MAKING absolute. Thus Section 3 of Article XIII of the
Constitution, provides:
The labor organization designated or
selected by the majority of the employees in SECTION 3. x x x
an appropriate collective bargaining unit
shall be the exclusive representative of the It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
employees in such unit for the purpose of self-organization, collective bargaining and
collective bargaining. However, an individual negotiations and peaceful concerted
employee or group of employees shall have activities, including the right to strike in
the right at any time to present grievances to accordance with law. They shall be entitled
their employer. to security of tenure, humane conditions of
work, and a living wage. They shall also
Workers shall have the right, subject to such participate in policy and decision-making
rules and regulations as the Secretary of processes affecting their rights and benefits
Labor and Employment may promulgate, to as may be provided by law. (Emphasis and
participate in policy and decision-making underscoring supplied)
process of the establishment where they are
employed insofar as said processes will Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the
directly affect their rights, benefits and strike may still be held illegal where the
welfare. For this purpose, workers and means employed are illegal. Thus, the
employers may form labor-management employment of violence, intimidation,
councils: Provided, That the representatives restraint or coercion in carrying out
of the workers in such labor management concerted activities which are injurious to
councils shall be elected by at least the the rights to property renders a strike illegal.
majority of all employees in said And so is picketing or the obstruction to the
establishment. free use of property or the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property, when
Only the labor organization designated or accompanied by intimidation, threats,
selected by the majority of the employees in violence, and coercion as to constitute
an appropriate collective bargaining unit is nuisance.3
the exclusive representative of the
employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining. 1
Vide: Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R.
No. 85343, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 388, 397.
2
Ibid.
3
II Azucena, Supra at 494-495.
As the appellate court correctly held, the committed discrimination in the rehiring of
union officers should be dismissed for strikers refusing to readmit those against
staging and participating in the illegal strike, whom there were pending criminal cases
following paragraph 3, Article 264(a) of the while admitting nonstrikers who were also
Labor Code which provides that ". . .[a]ny criminally charged in court; 9 or when the
union officer who knowingly participates in workers who staged a voluntary ULP strike
an illegal strike and any worker or union offered to return to work unconditionally but
officer who knowingly participates in the the employer refused to reinstate them. 10
commission of illegal acts during strike may Not any of these or analogous instances is,
be declared to have lost his employment however, present in the instant case.
status . . ."

An ordinary striking worker cannot, thus be

dismissed for mere participation in an illegal
strike. There must be proof that he
committed illegal acts during a strike, unlike
a union officer who may be dismissed by
mere knowingly participating in an illegal
strike and/or committing an illegal act during
a strike.4

For the general rule is that backwages shall

not be awarded in an economic strike on the
principle that "a fair day’s wage" accrues
only for a "fair day’s labor."5 Even in cases
of ULP strikes, award of backwages rests on
the court’s discretion and only in exceptional
instances.6

If there is no work performed by the

employee there can be no wage or pay,
unless of course, the laborer was able,
willing and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is
hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer
to fight or litigate against his employer on
the employer’s time.

Jurisprudential law, however, recognizes

several exceptions to the "no backwages coerced its members to vote for its hand-picked candidate as president of
rule," to wit: when the employees were petitioner union; required the members of petitioner union to join the
Seven-Up Employees Association, a newly organized labor union
illegally locked to thus compel them to stage obviously sponsored and favored by it with which it immediately executed
a collective bargaining agreement granting the members of such new
a strike;7 when the employer is guilty of the union fringe benefits while refusing to bargain with petitioner union
grossest form of ULP; 8 when the employer regarding the renewal of their just-expired contract and instead foisting
upon petitioner union its unilateral version of a collective bargaining
agreement; and filed a notice of lock-out and refused entry to members of
petitioner union when the latter refused to accept its unilateral contract
4
Stamford Marketing Corp. v. Julian, G.R. No. 145496, February 24, version; and that respondent employer’s union-busting and discriminatory
2004, 423 SCRA 633, 648; Bascon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144899, acts led petitioner union justifiably to declare a strike on August 6, 1957
February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 122, 130; CCBPI Postmix Workers Union v. against respondents’ unfair labor practices. It thus held. "The respondent
NLRC, G.R. Nos. 114521 and 123491, November 27, 1998, 299 SCRA company was found guilty of the grossest form of oppressive and unfair
410, 426; Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. labor practices, discriminatory acts and union–busting activities against
103560, July 6, 1995, 245 SCRA 627, 637-638. petitioners as the aggrieved parties and must bear the full consequences
5
he Philippine Marine Radio Officers’ Association v. Court of Industrial of its acts particularly in the light of its obstinacy in persisting in its refusal
Relations, 102 Phil. 373, 381 (1957); Manila Trading and Supply Co. v. to reinstate the unlawfully dismissed nine employees and accept the
Manila Trading Labor Association, 92 Phil. 997, 1000 (1953); Philippines returning strikers notwithstanding that its appeal to this Court in L-29331
Inter-Fashion, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-59847, October 18, 1982, 117 had been rejected in September, 1968."
9
SCRA 659 664; Dinglasan v. National Labor Union, 106 Phil. 671, 676-677 Vide: Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-Natu v.
(1959). Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., No. L-25291, May 5, 1977, 77 SCRA 3, 5.
6
Ibid. 10
Vide: Philippine Marine Officers’ Guild v. Compania Maritima, Supra at
7
Macleod & Co. of the Phil. v. Progressive Federation of Labor, 97 Phil. 1123; Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union v. Court of
205, 211 (1955). Industrial Relations, Supra at 929; People’s Bank and Trust Company v.
8
Vide: In Davao Free Workers Front v. C.I.R., G.R. No. L-29356, October People’s Bank and Trust Co. Employees Union, No. L-39598, January 13,
31, 1974, 60 SCRA 408, 412-424, this Court found that respondent 1976, 69 SCRA 10, 26.
employer refused to bargain with petitioner union; interfered with and